Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

London County Council (Money) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Severn Navigation Bill [Lords].
Exeter Corporation Bill [Lords].
Frimley and Farnborough District Water Bill [Lords].
Stoke-on-Trent Corporation Bill [Lords].
Gloucester Corporation Bill [Lords].
Urmston Urban District Council Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing
Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Bridgwater Corporation [Lords]
Camborne Water [Lords].

Reports referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Sheffield Corporation (Tramways) Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Leigh Joint Hospital District) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

OFFICERS (MEDICAL FITNESS).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 1 and 2.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) how many officers of the rank of colonel and of each rank of general officer have, during the past 12 months, been found not to be fit in all respects for active service; and how many of those so found unfit are still on full pay;
(2) whether all colonels and general officers have been medically examined during the past 12 months; and, if so, whether any reductions in the ages for compulsory retirement of colonels and the various ranks of general officers are contemplated as a result of these medical examinations?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): All general officers and colonels who are employed on full pay have been medically examined during the last 12 months. Four officers of these ranks were found by medical boards to be unfit, and only one of them remains on full-pay. Officers found to be temporarily unfit are removed to the half-pay list when they have exhausted their sick leave or are pronounced permanently unfit for general service. No reductions in the ages for compulsory retirement of officers of these ranks are contemplated.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Why is this elderly unfit officer allowed to remain on full pay while many young officers of the cavalry and infantry who are perfectly fit have been got rid of under the "axe"?

Mr. HACKING: Some of these officers are not permanently unfit, and it is rather hard to remove a man because he happens to be temporarily indisposed.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: May I take it that the military members of the Army Council, general officers, commanders-in-chief of commands, are included in this reply?

Mr. HACKING: I have answered the question put down by my hon. and gallant Friend, and, if he desires to put down another question, I will gladly answer that also.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (GUNNER'S DISCHARGE).

Mr. MAXTON: 3.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state on what grounds Private Walker, of the 78th Field Brigade of the Territorial Army, has been court-martialled and discharged from the Territorial Army for having taken part in a Scottish unemployed hunger march?

Mr. HACKING: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Gunner Walker was not tried by court-martial, nor was he discharged from the Territorial Army for taking part in a Scottish unemployed hunger march.

Mr. MAXTON: I am afraid I cannot accept that reply. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the man in question was brought before the commander-in-chief of the regiment
and other officers of the regiment, believed he was being court-martialled, and was discharged for the reason stated in the question and nothing else?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir, it is not the fact, as stated in the question, that this man ever appeared before a courtmartial. He was actually discharged under paragraph 199 (6a) as his services were no longer required.

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if this man was discharged from the Territorial Force; if he was interviewed by his commanding officer and other officers of the regiment and was cross-questioned by them as to his participation in a Scottish hunger march; was asked by them if he would give up his association with unemployed workers, and, on refusing, was then told that he would be dismissed from the regiment?

Mr. HACKING: The question the hon. Member asked was whether the man was court-martialled and discharged from the Territorial Army for having taken part in an unemployed hunger march, and I say that is not correct. This man was quite correctly discharged for other reasons.

Mr. MAXTON: What were the reasons?

Mr. HACKING: I am not prepared to disclose the reasons. It is not in the public interest that they should be disclosed.

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the right hon. Member whether the reasons for this man's dismissal from the Army were political reasons?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir, we do not consider politics in the Army at all. This man was discharged for reasons which I am not prepared to disclose, because it would not be in the public interest to do so.

Mr. MAXTON: I cannot leave it at that.

HORSES (CENSUS).

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 4.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office for what reason the Army Council recently took a census of horses in this country; whether the reduction which was shown in the numbers still leaves a sufficient reserve of animals for use in the event of any
emergency; and, if not, whether he will consider restoring the horse-breeding grants at least to the pre-1931 levels so as to give due encouragement to horse-breeding?

Mr. HACKING: A census of horses is taken periodically in order to watch the future provision of horses for the Army. The reduction shown in the numbers since the census of 1924 still leaves a sufficient number for mobilisation. There is not at present any proposal to increase the grants now made, but the situation is kept under review.

EXCHANGE OF OFFICERS.

Mr. JOEL: 5.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of different countries with which we exchange officers as an act of international courtesy; and the numbers in each case of such exchange of officers?

Mr. HACKING: There are no specific arrangements for exchange. Officers are attached to the armies of other countries according to applications received from time to time. The numbers of foreign officers at present attached to the British Army are: from China 4, Egypt 3, Germany 3, Iraq 4, Japan 1, Sweden 1. A total of 16. The number of British officers at present attached or about to be attached to foreign armies is 10; namely, 3 to France, 3 to Germany, 3 to Italy and 1 to Japan.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (TRAVEL ASSOCIATION).

Mr. MARCUS SAMUEL: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the £334, the amount of contributions for the year 1934–35 to the Scottish Travel Association, included any contributions from Aberdeen and the city of Glasgow, respectively, and, if so, of what amount?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The list of local authorities contributing to the Scottish Travel Association for the year 1934 does not include either of these cities.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask whether it is a fact that Aberdeen has made no contribution to the Scottish Travel Association?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (ROADWAYS).

Mr. TINKER: 7.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the long distance that many of the workmen have to walk underground to the working face; that often this is done in a stooping position because of low roads; and whether he will instruct His Majesty's inspector of mines to make a report to him of the length and height of roadways and the average number of persons who have to travel them, so that this question can be fully examined?

Th SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am aware of the position generally, but I should not feel justified in undertaking an elaborate inquiry of the kind suggested. Such an inquiry would take a long time, and I do not appreciate what useful purpose would be served by obtaining such detailed information. The condition of mine roadways is steadily improving, very largely as the result of the extensive use of steel supports.

Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member admits that he knows about the position. Could he not take some more drastic steps than he is doing at the present time? Surely the men are entitled to as good roads as have to be provided where pit-ponies travel?

Mr. BROWN: The question I was asked was whether I would enter upon a very elaborate inquiry, and I have to weigh up the position to see what practical results are likely to accrue, and, as I have said in the answer, I cannot see what results would be obtained by getting the facts which were asked for in the question.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member tell us how many collieries he has been down and what is the maximum distance men have to travel underground?

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Member will put down that question I will tell him.

Mr. PALING: In view of the development of mechanical means for carrying men underground, would it not be useful to get this information so that we might see how many collieries have adopted this mechanical transport?

Mr. BROWN: The information might be very useful, but there is a lot of information which I have to obtain which
involves a tremendous amount of detailed work. In all these cases, I have to weigh the question of what practical results could be expected. In some cases, no doubt, any drastic alterations might mean the entire closing of a mine. Weighing all the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that I should not be justified in getting all this information.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: Will the Minister take such action as will allay this grievance, seeing that the present state of affairs does interfere with the ventilation of collieries?

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Member has any other proposition to make I shall be glad to consider it.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is it not a fact that when the Labour Government were in office they never troubled to make such an investigation?

Oral Answers to Questions — MASHONALAND (NATIVE LABOUR).

Mr. MALLALIEU: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the natives of Mashonaland, Southern Rhodesia, are now being subjected to compulsory labour for the making of roads without receiving any payment of wages or rations whilst at work and without any remission of poll tax; and whether he will say under what legislation this labour is being exacted?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have made inquiries and understand that certain roads, of about 24 miles in extent, are being constructed in one of the reserves in Mashonaland in order to give better access to dipping tanks and so attract purchasers to whom the natives may sell their cattle. These roads have been made by native cattle owners at the suggestion of the dip tank supervisor; no compulsion has been used and no complaints have been received from the natives.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is satisfied that he is receiving correct reports of conditions in Newfoundland; and whether he will make an investigation into the sources of his present information?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: It is, I am sure, unnecessary for me to say that I have complete confidence in the reports furnished to me by the Governor and the Commission of Government.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman been made acquainted with events there on the 10th of this month, and can he tell the House something of the unfortunate consequences?

Mr. THOMAS: Immediately on seeing the report, I telegraphed for information, and this is the reply:
The Commission of Government at a recent meeting decided to refuse demands by an unemployed committee composed of five professional agitators, for recognition of themselves as representing the unemployed and for complete control of the temporary relief work on road repair etc. approved recently by the Commission. Following this refusal a meeting of the unemployed was called by the committee for 3 p.m. on 10th May. A crowd consisting of about 400 unemployed, largely youths and large numbers of spectators, then assembled and marched to the Colonial Building and attempted to enter it. General stone-throwing against the police occurred. The police, numbering about 70, drew their batons and charged. The whole affair did not last two minutes. Five policemen were injured by stones, two slightly, three more seriously. Of the demonstrators several were struck by batons. The demonstration was obviously organised, and Press photographers were present.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman now any reason to doubt the statement of the writer who sent the article to the "Daily Herald," and was he aware when he made his previous reply that the writer, although he was prosecuted in 1925, was exonerated afterwards by the Attorney-General who conducted his case?

Mr. THOMAS: I observed the "Daily Herald's" comments and I also took the necessary steps to ascertain all the information at our disposal about this gentleman. I am prepared to send to my hon. Friend or to any other Member of the House a copy of the report showing the admissions made by this gentleman at the time.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to reply to the question? Was he aware that the person referred to has never been convicted of misappropriating funds in this or any other case?

Mr. THOMAS: I am well aware of the admissions of the writer in question. He is the one involved in these latest demonstrations. I am well aware of the admissions made by himself as to misappropriation. I have already indicated that I will send to my hon. Friend a copy of this gentleman's own admissions.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Mabane.

Mr. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Is it not in order to ask for a specific reply to be made to a specific question where statements have been made against an individual who has no opportunity for replying to the statements himself?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is in order and I have allowed the hon. Member to put the same question twice. I have no control over the reply which the hon. Member receives.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RETAIL PROFITS (MILK).

Mr. MABANE: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the current average rate of gross profit, stated as a percentage of turnover, on goods sold at retail prices in this country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): No, Sir.

Mr. MABANE: Does this not indicate that there is no authority for the not infrequent statement, made by Ministers and others, that the rate is excessive?

Mr. MABANE: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the current average rate of gross profit, stated as a percentage of turnover, on milk sold at retail prices in this country?

Dr. BURGIN: I regret that the desired information is not available.

Mr. MABANE: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture to that statement?

POTTERY INDUSTRY.

Mr. HALES: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the injury being done to the North Staffordshire pottery industry by the practical cessation of orders from Holland owing to the quota restrictions;
and whether he will take immediate steps to remove the ban now existing on British imports into that country, and also to facilitate the granting of licences for the importation of British pottery into Holland?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I understand that the quota allotted to the United Kingdom for fine earthenware, which is at the rate of 681.4 metric tons a year, was not fully used last year, and that this has been attributed by the industry to the method of allocation of licences in the Netherlands. The matter is under discussion with the industry, with a view to such representations to the Netherlands Government as may prove necessary. The possibility of securing increased quotas in the Netherlands for United Kingdom goods generally is also receiving active consideration.

COKE (MOISTURE CONTENT).

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that coke is mostly sold by weight only, he will consider prescribing a maximum moisture content for coke offered for sale?

Dr. BURGIN: My right hon. Friend has no power to enforce the kind of provision suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

SOYA BEANS (DUTY).

Brigadier-General NATION: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the resolution sent to him by the Hull and District Seed Crushers' Association on 7th May on the subject of the new duty on soya beans; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has already reminded the Association that it is open to the industry to make application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for additional duties on soya products and for schemes of drawback of duty on the export of such products.

KEY INDUSTRY DUTIES.

Major COLFOX: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the committee which has been appointed to consider the key industry duties will take into account the interests of consumers?

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir. An announcement has been made in the Press that any representations which consumers of the articles or substances concerned desire to make should be addressed to the Committee.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the bulk of this class of goods now made in this country have been sold more cheaply to the public than was the case when they were imported in prewar days from abroad?

Dr. BURGIN: I think that is generally true.

SECOND HAND TEXTILE MACHINERY (EXPORTS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there are firms in Lancashire advertising in the Indian and Japanese Textile and Engineering Diary, 1935, the sale of second-hand Lancashire textile machinery; whether he can give any information as to the value of this export trade; whether he has taken into consideration the recommendation set forth in the Colwyn Committee Report to put a stop to this traffic; and, if so, with what results?

Dr. BURGIN: My attention had not previously been drawn to these particular advertisements and I am afraid that there are no separate statistics of the exports of second-hand textile machinery. The recommendation of the Colwyn Committee referred solely to the disposal of surplus plant acquired for the purposes of the scheme recommended by the Committee which is now under consideration.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to look at the advertisements sent out to the East by Lancashire firms offering for sale secondhand textile machinery from Lancashire, if I let him see the publication?

Dr. BURGIN: I shall be very glad to consider any material, of course.

RUSSIA.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 25.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the approximate figures of the value of orders placed in this country by the Russian Government between 1st April, 1934, and April, 1935?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: There are no United Kingdom official statistics regarding the value of orders placed in this country. According to an unofficial source, the value of orders placed by the Soviet Union in this country during the period specified amounted to £10,119,937. These orders were, of course, not confined to goods of United Kingdom origin or manufacture.

IMPORT DUTIES (EGGS).

Sir PERCY HURD: 35.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of revenue derived in 1934 from the import duties payable on foreign eggs in shell, liquid eggs, and dried eggs, respectively?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The amounts of revenue derived in the calendar year 1934 from the import duties on eggs in shell, liquid eggs (including frozen eggs, as to which separate information is not available) and dried eggs including albumen, were £828,200, £167,100 and £25,900 respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

ARMAMENTS.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that aeroplane engines are being built in Coventry for Germany; and whether he will stop their being exported to that country?

Lieut. - Colonel COLVILLE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not therefore arise.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Am I to understand from that reply that no aeroplane engines are being built in Coventury that are going to Germany?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes. I think my answer is quite clear on that point.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that there is no nickel, copper, or tin in Germany and that munitions cannot be manufactured without them; and, as 90 per cent. of the world supply of nickel is in Canada and the other 10 per cent. belongs to France, what measures are being, or will be, adopted to
prevent these metals being exported to Germany from either Canada or France?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): As regards the first part of the question, I understand that, while nickel and tin are not indigenous to Germany, there are nevertheless deposits of copper in that country. As regards the second part of the question, the figures given by the hon. Member for the world production of nickel are, I am informed, only approximately correct. There are appreciable deposits of this metal also in Greece, India, Norway and the United States of America. The adoption of measures designed to control the export of the metals mentioned from either Canada or France is a matter for the French Government and for His Majesty's Government in Canada. I am not aware that any such measures have been adopted by either of these two Governments.

Mr. COCKS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that last March the French Government prohibited the export of certain materials designed for making munitions?

Mr. EDEN: I have no information on that point.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of the original reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would not use his influence with the present Cabinet in order that they may use their influence with those who have control of both nickel and tin, because, if we were to use our influence with Canada and others within the British Empire, it would not be possible to manufacture armaments of any description in Germany?

Mr. EDEN: That goes far beyond the scope of this question.

LOCARNO TREATY (RHINELAND).

Mr. MANDER: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether representations have been received from the German Government with regard to the demilitarised zone of the Rhineland; and whether it has been made clear that the obligation to render military assistance under the treaties of Locarno applies either to France or to Germany, according to who is the aggressor?

Mr. EDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to Article 4 of the Treaty of Locarno.

Mr. MANDER: It is a fact, is it not, that the Treaty applies both ways?

Mr. EDEN: Article 4 makes it quite clear that assistance is to be given equally either to Belgium, France or Germany in the event of the casus foederis arising.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (ENTRY PERMITS).

Brigadier-General NATION: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour how many foreigners were admitted for work in this country during the last year?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The total number of permits issued by my Department for the employment of foreign workers during the year 1934 was 10,286. In addition, in 2,283 cases recommendations were made to the Home Office that foreigners who had been admitted without permit should be allowed to take up employment.

Brigadier-General NATION: Are the numbers entering this country increasing or decreasing?

Mr. STANLEY: I could not answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LAND DRAINAGE, EAST SUFFOLK.

Mr. LOFTUS: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that no progress can be made with land drainage in the River Blyth internal district until a proper outfall of the River Blyth is secured; that a proposal has been made by the East Suffolk Catchment Board, supported by the promise of a substantial financial contribution from the Corporation of Southwold; whether the necessary Treasury support has been obtained; and when the work will be put in hand?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I am aware of the position as regards the River Blyth and I have received a formal application from the catchment board concerned for a grant
under Section 55 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, in respect of a scheme of remedial works for the outfall of the river, estimated to cost £29,000. As soon as the board submit details of the works proposed, these will be examined and, if approved, the board will be informed as to the amount of the grant payable.

PIG INDUSTRY.

Sir P. HURD: 23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to proceed with an agreed scheme for the constitution of a development board to co-ordinate the interests of pig producers and bacon curers and facilitate the development of the industry on terms that will ensure remunerative returns to producers?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards have informed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself that they do not propose to proceed further with the draft scheme now before us for the establishment of a development board for the bacon industry, but that it is their intention to submit immediately a revised scheme for our consideration.

Sir P. HURD: Why is the scheme being abandoned?

Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that as the result of consideration and objection a number of amendments have been made, and that it is believed to be more convenient to submit a revised scheme incorporating the amendments. That is the reason why the present scheme is being withdrawn.

MILK PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).

Sir P. HURD: 24.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether in view of the increased production of milk this summer and the greater output of condensed milk and dried milk in this country, the Government is taking further steps to check by quantitative restriction or tariffs the importations of processed milk products?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Governments of the foreign countries mainly concerned in the United Kingdom market with condensed milk, milk powder and cream, have been asked to arrange for certain additional reductions in supplies as from 1st April last, the reductions in each case being based on imports during the corresponding months of the year previous to the in-
troduction of voluntary import regulation, namely, June, 1932, to May, 1933. I am circulating details of these reductions in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Arrangements are also being made to secure reductions in imports of condensed whole milk, condensed skimmed milk and cream from the Irish Free State. As my hon. Friend will be aware, imports of processed milks from foreign countries are already subject to customs duties. It is understood that the interests concerned have under consideration an application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for additional duties on condensed skimmed milk, condensed whole milk and milk powder (the duty on cream has been conventionalised under the Anglo-Danish Trade Agreement which operates until June, 1936). If such an application is made, future policy will be considered in the light of any recommendations received from the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Sir P. HURD: Is it not a fact that English manufacturers are now capable of supplying the British market?

Mr. ELLIOT: There has no doubt been a considerable increase in the production of these commodities from British milk, and it is on account of that that these reductions have been asked for.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the farmers or the Government are doing, apart from providing liquid milk for poor children, to help to extend the sales of liquid milk, because in that direction lies the only possible hope for the dairy farmers of this country?

Mr. ELLIOT: A very extensive scheme of bonus for clean milk has been introduced by the Milk Board in order to secure a guaranteed quality of milk upon the foundation of which any expansion of the market will rest.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Have the reductions actually been made?

Mr. ELLIOT: Oh, yes, Sir.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the question of the regulation of milk products being discussed with the Dominion representatives who are now here?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir, we have not so far undertaken those discussions.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Would not one of the most certain ways of discouraging what are really milk substitutes be to bring down the retail price of fresh liquid milk in this country as supplied to the public?

Mr. ELLIOT: It is very desirable to bring down the retail price, but as long as manufacturing milk is at its present very low level it automatically forces up the price of liquid milk.

Following are the details.

Condensed Skimmed Milk: 10 per cent. (making 40 per cent. in all) during the six months to 30th September.

Condensed Whole Milk: 5 per cent. (making 35 per cent. in all) during the quarter ending 30th June and a further 5 per cent. during the quarter ending 30th September.

Milk Powder: 5 per cent. (making 30 per cent. in all) during the quarter ending 30th June and a further 5 per cent. during the quarter ending 30th September.

Cream: 5 per cent. (making 40 per cent. in all) during the quarter ending 30th June and a further 5 per cent. in each of the quarters ending 30th September and 31st December.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (NATIVE REPRESENTATION).

Mr. ATTLEE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the text of the Native Bills in South Africa bas reached him; and whether, according to his information, the five-and-a-half million natives of the Union are to have any representation in the legislature other than through four elected European members and four nominated European members in the Senate?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have received a copy of the report of the Joint Committee of the Union Parliament, which includes certain draft Bills described as being "a basis for legislation." One of these draft Bills concerns the representation of natives. It provides for the representation to which the hon. Member refers; it also provides that no person already registered as a Parliamentary voter shall at any future registration of Parliamentary voters be refused registration merely because he is a native.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN SITUATION (ROME CONFERENCE).

Mr. MANDER: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who will be the British representative at the Rome Conference on the Central European Pact; and whether the British delegation will be present in a full representative capacity?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Prime Minister in this House on 2nd May, to the effect that His Majesty's Government will be represented at this Conference by an observer. It is not yet possible for me to say who will act in this capacity.

Mr. MANDER: Have the Government given consideration to the representations made on this subject by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) during the Debate?

Mr. EDEN: I feel sure that that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (PROPAGANDA).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID (for Mr. MACQUISTEN): 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, on the occasion of the Lord Privy Seal's recent visit to Moscow, any undertaking or guarantee was given that there would be no financial or other assistance given to Communist propaganda in Great Britain or any part of the British Empire, including India?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on the 17th April. The matter is covered by the pledges already given by the Soviet Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOVEDALE.

Mr. MANDER: 30.
asked the Minister of Health the present position with regard to the preservation of Dovedale as a national park; and what steps the county authorities of Staffordshire and Derbyshire are taking in the matter either jointly or severally?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): On the Derbyshire side of the river a Joint Executive Planning
Committee has recently been formed by the several local authorities adjoining Dovedale, including the county council, and on the Staffordshire side the Leek Rural District Council have resolved to plan an area including the valley of the Dove.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not proposed to form a joint committee?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Not at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (RECONDITIONING).

Mr. JOEL: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government have ever considered the desirability of making a grant for the reconditioning of houses, both by local authorities and by private owners; and what are their views on this subject?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Yes, Sir. The Government have given careful consideration to this question, and are of the opinion that the needs of the situation will be adequately met by the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926–1931, as proposed to be amended by the Housing Bill now before Parliament, and by the general provisions of that Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).

Mr. THORNE: 33.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Messrs. L. B. Holliday and Company, of Huddersfield, chemical manufacturers, are Government contractors; that they are not paying the recognised trade union rates, and are not observing trade union conditions of employment for chemical workers agreed by the heavy chemical joint industrial council; and that they were part of the chemical national joint industrial council at the time of the last advance in wages that was granted to the heavy chemical workers; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?

Mr. COOPER: I understand that this firm hold a contract with the Admiralty. If definite particulars are submitted to that Department of the wages paid by the firm and those which are claimed to be payable under the Fair Wages Clause, the complaint will be investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND (FRONTIER SMUGGLING).

Sir G. FOX: 34.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many cases have been reported during the first four months of this year of the smuggling of dutiable goods and animals across the frontier of the Irish Free State and the corresponding figure for 1934; what is the present approximate annual cost of maintaining precautions against smuggling on this frontier; and what was the corresponding cost twelve months ago?

Mr. COOPER: It would not be in the public interest to furnish the information desired.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business on Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): On Friday it is proposed to take further consideration of the Housing Bill; and it might be for the convenience of the House if I state that Monday of next week will be given for the conclusion of the Report stage and Third Reading of the Housing Bill.

Mr. LANSBURY: On that subject, I should like to say, first of all, that we think we ought to have a full three days, and not two days and a Friday, for the Housing Bill. We are rather uncertain whether the Government of India Bill is going to be concluded by to-morrow, and, if it is not concluded, we think that that Bill should be taken on Friday, and that we should have a full day instead for the Housing Bill. Further, we should also like a full day for the Third Reading discussion, and we would ask that the arrangements be reconsidered in consultation through the usual channels.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Before the Prime Minister replies, may I ask whether it is the intention to take the Government of India Bill after Eleven o'Clock to-night in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?

The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to move the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, but it is not for the purpose of having a late sitting; it is only to enable the House to pull up unfinished ends. As to the Housing Bill, we have given all the time that is possible in
view of the pressure of business and of the desire, which I believe exists in all parts of the House, to get the Bill finished. If it meets the general convenience of the House, and the Report stage can be finished on Friday, the Government are perfectly willing to give the whole day on Monday for the Debate on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Sir H. CROFT: With regard to the Government of India Bill, may I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that somethink like 40 pages have appeared on the Paper in the last three days in the name of the Secretary of State? I hope it is realised that the whole of the business would be completely up to date but for that fact and for the fact that 14 new Clauses were put down by the Secretary of State, also at a later stage.

The PRIME MINISTER: As I have said, and speaking to the point, I propose to move the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule not for the purpose of having a late sitting, but in order to enable the business that has been commenced to be properly concluded.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible to reconsider the allocation of time for the Housing Bill, so that we

may have a full three days, instead of two days and a Friday. Some of the Amendments on the Report stage are very important from our point of view, and we prefer that they should be fully discussed on the Floor of the House. I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that there is any reason for the application of the "hurry up, be quick" sort of mind of the Patronage Secretary.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the House recognises that, every Thursday when it falls to me to announce the business for the next week, we give the House a programme of the work which has to be done, and everybody is anxious to get the Housing Bill through. If the Report stage finishes on Friday, we will put no business down on Monday except the Third Reading of that Bill. Looking at the Order Paper, I think that that would really be quite sufficient to enable the business on the Paper regarding this Bill to be very adequately discussed.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this days' Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The house divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 37.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Considered in Committee [TWENTY-NINTH DAY—Progress, 13th May.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Legislative Lists.)

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to say a few words on what was said in the House at the end of Question Time. Hon. Members will agree that the House has, if I may respectfully use the phrase, increased its prestige considerably by the way in which this Bill has been dealt with in Committee, and I venture to hope, therefore, that we shall complete the Bill in the way that we have begun and that we shall not fail to end the Committee stage to-morrow night. I do not think that there is any reason why we should not do so, and that ought to mean that we at least complete the existing Schedule to the Bill to-night and leave not less than a whole day tomorrow for the new Franchise Schedules. I realise that that may mean a certain amount of self-denial on the part of some Members of the Committee in refraining from making remarks and observations which are not absolutely essential, interesting as they may be both to themselves and to other Members of the Committee, but I feel sure that if we behave in the best way that we have sometimes behaved during the preceding stages of the Committee on the Bill we ought to be able to complete the Committee stage to-morrow.

3.39 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: So far as my friends and I are concerned, we are anxious to do everything we possibly can to carry out the spirit of the agreement, and I think that we can say that until the Secretary of State thought it necessary to put down so many new Clauses we were well up to time, and we are not very far behind now. The difficulty in a matter of this kind is that the Schedule which we are now discussing is a very long one and as the debate continues it may be that some very big points may arise. I can only give the assurance that so far as my friends and I are concerned we will do everything we can to
keep to the time-table, and we will only deal with those points which we regard as absolutely essential.

3.40 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I beg to move, in page 295, line 3, after "transfer," to insert "alienation."
It has been found that the proposals in regard to the transfer of agricultural land are defective in that they do not cover alienation. Two Provinces at least have legislation imposing restrictions on agricultural land, and we therefore wish to add the word "alienation" in order to make the matter clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 295, line 7, leave out paragraph 22, and insert:
22. Regulation of mines and oilfields and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under Federal control"—[Mr. Butler.]

3.42 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg to move, in page 295, line 13, leave out "money-lending and money-lenders."
We desire to transfer this subject to the Concurrent List in Part II. During the last few days we have endeavoured to persuade the Government to transfer certain vital matters affecting the religious and social fabric of India to the Federal List. This important subject appears in the provincial List, and we want it put into the Concurrent List. Where you have customs and habits which are deeply rooted in the religious life of India, we think that they ought not to be dealt with piecemeal by various Provincial Governments, but should be handled after great deliberation and care with the consent of the Central authorities. Of these habits and practices money-lending is perhaps one of the most serious and most difficult problems to solve in all the complexities which confront us in India. It is a far-reaching matter and affects great multitudes of the Indian people. It will be agreed that the money-lender in India is a scourge and blot on Indian life. Vast numbers of the poorest of the poor may be said to be born in debt and to die in debt. The causes are partly social, arising incidentally out of the religious
customs, and partly the agricultural depression, more especially so during the last few years when there has been a drop in the price of primary products in India as well as throughout the world.
In the social and religious customs among the Hindus what are large sums for these poor people are paid on numerous occasions by the average Hindu to the Brahmin priest. When a child is born ceremonies take place and payments have to be made. Sixteen weeks after the birth there is the purification ceremony, when large payments again are made. On the occasion of the weaning of the child and the first visit of the barber, when the child first walks and on the completion of its first year, on the completion of its seventh year, upon marriage, on the first signs of puberty; on all these occasions the priest must be paid for the good of the souls of the parents and the offspring. It is very complicated and only shows how great some of these problems are. When death occurs the priest again comes into the picture, and money has also to be paid on cremation and in some cases every month afterwards. If the family is poor, these constant payments are a great strain on the purse, and, if they are not paid, it is feared that disaster will fall on the child and the family. In these circumstances, millions of people are driven to the money-lenders to get what are regarded as essential sums. There is also the problem of rural indebtedness, and it is estimated that the indebtedness now amounts to something like £800,000,000 which is a colossal sum. It arises from the fact that the poor peasants have been driven to find someone to finance them. They have had to go to the money-lender. Some Provinces have endeavoured to cope with this matter by providing for the registration of money-lenders, prescribing standard forms of accounts and setting a limit to usurious interest.
Recent legislation to this effect in the Punjab has created very intense feelings between the Hindus generally, who are the lenders in nearly every case, and the Moslem peasantry who are the principal borrowers. Money-lenders, in some respects, are the backbone of Hindu life because they are also in many cases bankers and traders. Legislation on somewhat similar lines to that of the
Punjab has been under consideration for other Provinces, notably Bengal, where owing to the ignorance and apathy of the peasants the problem is more acute than anywhere else in India. Money-lenders may be a necessary evil in present conditions, especially when there are uncertain harvests and a depression in prices. The money-lender finances the peasant, that is true, but at a calamitous rate of interest, and the result is that peasants who are in the toils of money-lenders frequently find that they can never escape from their difficulties and very often it is not easy for them to get advice because the subordinate judiciary and clerical staff are also of the money-lending class. The consequence is that the peasant is frequently driven to sell or mortgage his little holding of land in liquidation of his debts, and this often drives him to what is described as the wild practice of revenge. The Committee may be interested to know that last year, according to the official records, there were 13 cases in which money-lenders were murdered in the Punjab alone by their peasant debtors.
Under this Bill the Hindu capitalist class, which is very largely associated with money-lending, will be in power in most of the Provinces. I want particularly to ask the Committee this question: How can you expect these men in control of the Provincial Legislatures to initiate, still less to press, legislation which will free the peasants from their debts? It seems to me that if you are going to rely on such legislation being produced in the Provinces, at any rate in the majority of the Provinces, which will be under Hindu control, it is never going to be produced. Also with the control of law and order taken out of British hands, it may well happen that you will get a movement started in the Provinces of India and that the peasant will rise with a programme for wiping out debts and seizing land, as occurred in the United Provinces in 1921–22. That might prove a very favourable opportunity for a Communist uprising, and I think it will be generally admitted that it would intensify to a very great extent the whole question of communal differences between the different religions. So we find that if in one Province there is failure to deal adequately with this question of agrarian trouble, due to the fact that the peasant is no longer able to meet his
debts, we might have this trouble spreading from Province to Province, and it might flare up until it became an all-India problem.
To sum up, if you leave this great and appalling problem solely in the hands of the Provinces, whose Legislatures are controlled by money-lenders and the money-lending class, there is little if any hope of a reform in this very grave and complex subject, which is so harmful to the lives of many millions of people in India. I believe that in the long run this problem could have been best solved by the British Government detaching it from this communal issue. But that we are not contemplating. The British Government are optimistic. There is to be this new Federal Government established. On the assumption that the Federal Government will not be dominated by a single religion or a single caste or by affiliated castes, but will in time be able to take a broad view of the interests of India as a whole, there is some hope that in such a central Government you might be able to bring in some banking system by which the peasants could find the money to carry them over these difficult times, so that they would not be forced for all time under the bondage of the money-lender. We do not understand these problems in this country to the same extent as those in India do. There are all over India vast multitudes of small cultivators who never see any hope of advancing because practically the whole of their savings have to go in interest to money-lenders. I suggest that we should not trust to luck, that we should not trust that this matter will be dealt with in the various Provinces, but that we should transfer this great and vital subject to the concurrent list.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am very glad to associate myself with the heavy indictment of the capitalist class made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). I have seldom heard in a short speech a better picture of the condition of the proletariat. I am sure that if the hon. and gallant Member's speech was translated into Russian it would be received with joy in that country, and would be added to the considerable literature on the subject. But I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member on the practical suggestion that
he has made. He is afraid, and I am also afraid, that the new Councils may be dominated by the vested interests of the capitalists, sometimes called moneylenders. There is a variety of capitalists, and everything depends on their relative rapacity. Vested interests will be far stronger at the Centre, but there is a hope that in some of the Provinces the cultivators of the soil may get power. Indeed I believe that in the Punjab there was a very drastic Money-Lenders' Bill introduced. But when you come to the Centre, with all the powers of wealth there, I do not see very much chance of getting anything drastic done. There is a much better chance in the agrarian Provinces, where you may get a majority representing the actual land workers. I do not think, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Member's proposition is a very useful one. It would be much better to leave this matter to the Provinces. Otherwise the Provinces, instead of tackling their real diculties, may well say "We will leave this matter to the Centre for the Centre to act, and we will not act ourselves."

3.56 p.m.

Mr. DAVID MASON: I would ask the Government whether it is not possible for them to give some assurance that if they retain this provision in the Bill they will also provide for agricultural banks or facilities of that sort. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) that this money-lending is a scourge in India. But it is also a necessary evil. What are the Government going to do if they do not provide some means of finance for the peasants? I agree with the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) that we are more likely to get some reform from the Provinces than from the Centre. The Centre is more likely to be dominated by capitalist interests than are the Provinces. If the Government would give an assurance that they would look favourably on any proposal which would provide some alternative to the rather bullying attitude which the money-lender adopts to the helpless peasantry, that might meet the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth. He recognises that some finance is necessary for these people. While we agree with him as to the necessity of getting rid of the present evil, we must provide an alternative means of financing these
peasants. I appeal to the Government to provide these alternative methods.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: In reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason), this matter of money-lending and money-lenders has, of course, been in the forefront of the minds of various Governments in India for many years past. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) is quite right in his description of the evils and the scourge of money-lending. In many of these Debates on the Legislative Lists we find ourselves in agreement with the main case put to us. We agree that it is necessary for steps to be taken to eradicate money-lending, and the only question at issue is whether it is wise to insert this item in the Provincial list or in the Concurrent List. All that the hon. and gallant Member said about the danger of high rates of interest and the social habits of the Hindus, and their getting themselves into debt, largely through customs relating to their social and family life, is perfectly correct.
The question, however, is whether we can deal with this on a provincial or on a central basis. Hitherto, money-lending and money-lenders have been an item under provincial control, and it is our view that it would be wiser to leave the power to the Provinces, for the reason that if you leave the Provinces with their responsible Governments to deal with this matter, you are much more likely to get it properly dealt with than if you place it in the hands of the Centre. The first reason is because of the peculiarities of each particular Province. The most striking piece of legislation in modern India against money-lending was recently passed by the Punjab Legislative Council, very largely due to the vote of the agriculturists in that Council. The result of this piece of legislation has been to enforce the registration of moneylenders, and to enforce a particular method of keeping accounts.
I have taken the trouble to investigate this matter, and I have heard from Sir Miles Irving, who has recently returned from the Punjab, and I have read in a recent paper he has written, that the reason for this legislation is the new power which the agriculturists feel has come to them. Under our proposal of extended franchise, the object of which is
to give votes to the agricultural classes, their votes will be very much increased, and I am convinced that the phenomenon we have seen in the Punjab Legislative Council will be copied all over India by the agricultural classes when they realise their power under the new Constitution. This, I think, is one of the most important arguments in support of our reforms. It is essentially the small cultivator who should be given more power, and it is by extending the franchise to the small cultivator, and by encouraging the agriculturist, as has been the case in the Punjab, that the money-lender can be most effectively dealt with.
Besides this advantage of Provincial legislation, there is, as I have said, the advantage of the different customs and the different conditions in the different Provinces. One of the most important methods of checking the money-lender has been what is known as the Dumdupat rule, under which, when the interest reaches the same sum as the principal, no further interest can accrue to the money-lender. That may seem to us a very meagre protection, but the Committee must remember that the rates of interest in India are much higher than we have ever considered possible here. We may grumble at 5 per cent., but we do not consider 50, 100 or even 200 per cent. at all, and that is very often the lot of the Indian peasant when in the hands of the Indian money-lender. This rule has been brought in in the Province of Bombay, where it follows the customary law of the Province. I am assured by expert opinion, and by those who have studied this question in India, that it will be impossible to apply any one uniform law for the whole of India in order to check money-lending, and curb the rapacious habits of money-lenders. If we did that, it would be the quickest way of checking provincial effort to deal with this matter, and provincial effort, thanks to the new power of the agriculturists, would seem to be the very best way to deal with it.
The hon. and gallant Member appears to have conceived in the latter part of our discussions a great liking for our new central government. In the earlier part of the discussions he spent much time in attacking the new Central Government we are about to set up. Now it is his earnest wish to transfer as many items as possible to the control of the
Centre. In this particular case, I think the hon. Member opposite is quite right in saying that the money-lender would receive shorter shrift in the Provincial Legislature than in the Central. Therefore, I strongly advise my hon. and gallant Friend in this case to leave the matter to provincial control and provincial legislation.
The hon. Member for East Edinburgh asked me how this matter would be dealt with in the future. He is aware that the governments have already powers to deal with money-lending. The rural co-operatives which have been set up all over India have done great work in tackling the problem of rural indebtedness. This would be the best way of dealing with rural debt. It is already covered by Item 32 in the Provincial List, and I hope their beneficial activities, which have always had the encouragement of the Government, will be continued in the future.
In conclusion, I would say that I think we are right in leaving this matter to provincial control, because while the Centre has passed only one rather mild measure to deal with this subject, the Provinces have passed much more drastic legislation. That is the desire of the hon. and gallant Member, and while not criticising his excellent arguments and the care with which he has prepared his case, I would put to him, after close investigation of this subject and expert advice, that with the new power the agriculturist is learning to use in the Provinces, we had much better leave this matter to Provincial rather than Central control.

4.7 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I supplement the reply which my hon. Friend has given to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) with regard to his question as to whether the Government could not do something by promoting agricultural banks to free these unfortunate peasants from the money-lenders? I do not think that in his reply the Under-Secretary made clear that under this Bill the Governor will have no power to deal with agricultural banks or to take any initiative to promote the welfare of the peasants except by safeguarding peace and tranquillity. And it is the same with the Governor-General.

Mr. D. MASON: I did not suggest that the British Government could do it, but I only asked the Government to—

The CHAIRMAN: I think we must not develop that subject.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am glad that I misunderstood the hon. Member's question. I thought he was suggesting that the Government should initiate or encourage some movement of the kind. When this Bill becomes law we shall not know what is happening in India except with regard to the matters covered by the special responsibilities of the Governor-General and the Governors. Although I would infinitely rather see the Governor-General given some special responsibility, which would enable him to interest himself in this matter of the welfare of the people, as he can do in the certain circumstances I have mentioned, I think it is advisable to put this subject in the Concurrent List, because although one Province, where the hand of the money-lender is particularly resented by the majority of the people, namely, the Moslems, has passed legislation of the kind described, it remains exceedingly doubtful whether the Provinces where the Hindus predominate are likely to do anything of the kind. We know that the money-lenders belong to the Hindu moneylending class, and in the Provinces in which Hindus are likely to have a great deal of political power, it may be extremely difficult for the Moslems, who have no money-lenders, to get any protective legislation passed.
I should like to add to what my hon. and gallant Friend said as to the terrible way in which, early in life, people in India get driven into the hands of the money-lender. Hindu religion prescribes very expensive feasts at marriages and funerals. I was given an instance of that a few weeks ago in the case of a very high-caste Brahmin whose acquaintance I had the pleasure of making in regard to this Bill. He died, and his son wrote to me telling me of the heavy obligations in which he was landed, because the poor had to be fed for no less than 14 days! mention that as an indication of how inevitably a large proportion of people in India are forced into the hands of money-lenders who charge these terrible rates of interest. But I must say to the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee),
that because of the terrific rates of interest to which he referred, it does seem beside the mark to confuse this money-lending in India with the ordinary tirade he and his colleagues make against capitalists in this country. Were capitalists here to charge anything like 30 or 40 per cent., to say nothing of 200 per cent., we should all join hands with the hon. Member in his diatribes.
To return to the question as to what might be done if this matter were put in the Concurrent List, and the Federal Government given some powers in the matter. I should like to recall to memory the report of the Linlithgow Commission on Agriculture, and the very interesting part of the report which spoke of an Act passed a few years ago, the purpose of which was, in every Province, to give protection to the debtor against the money-lender, by giving power to the debtor to bring the case into court, and giving the court power to cut down the rate of interest.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we must not discuss now what legislation may be carried out by the Indian Legislature.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I have no intention of discussing what legislation might in future be brought in by the Legislature. I am giving this as an illustration of what the Central Government are already able to do in this matter, and I hope, Sir Dennis, you will not think it out of order if I tell the Committee that the Linlithgow Commission, in reporting on this legislation, said that the Act had remained a dead letter in every Province.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I do regard that as out of order. It is quite irrelevant to the Amendment before the Committee.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Perhaps you may not think it out of order if I quote the Linlithgow Commission's opinion that if the Act had been put into operation, it would have been of great benefit to the debtors of India. They recommended the Government of India to institute inquiries in every Province as to why the Act had not been operated, and to ask for an annual report from every Provincial Government as to how
far the Act had been put into effect. I submit that that is an indication of what a very influential and very well-informed committee thought possible that a Central Government could do in ibis very important matter. Any action of that kind would be quite impossible to the Federal Government, and although it is said that in the Punjab Legislature, where agriculturists are chiefly Moslems, and resent very much the Hindu moneylender, a beneficial Act has been passed, it makes it extremely doubtful whether anything of the kind will be carried through in the Provinces, where the Hindus, who are the majority, will have the controlling hand. I would also remind the Committee that this legislation has been carried through in a Legislature where there is a considerable nominated element—an element nominated by the Governor, and pledged more or less to help the Governor, and everyone holding European standards such legislation as very necessary. But in future, in every Province, there will be an entirely communal majority, there will be no one nominated by the Governor and therefore, it remains an extremely open question as to whether legislation of this kind will be carried through in the future.
I cannot but regard this as one of several instances in which the welfare of the peasant in India is liable to be gravely prejudiced by the fact that provincial autonomy is going to be so exclusive. That exclusive autonomy is because of the fears many Moslems have of a Federation which must be largely ruled by Hindus. They wish that provincial autonomy should be exclusive as possible because they hope in that way to have power in three Provinces and possibly in a fourth. They wish that the Provincial Governments should be as little interfered with as possible and I think it is worth the Committee's while to note that this is one of several instances in which that exclusiveness of provincial autonomy is going to mean sacrificing the welfare of the people for purely political considerations.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 32.

Division No. 183.]
AYES.
[3.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fermoy, Lord


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chaster, City)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cayzer, Ma. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Albery, Irving James
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fox, Sir Gifford


Allan, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Fromantle, Sir Francis


Assheton, Ralph
Christie, James Archibald
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Ganzoni, Sir John


Atholl, Duchess of
Cobb, Sir Cyril
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Conant, R. J. E.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Balniel, Lord
Cooke, Douglas
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooper, A. Duff
Goff, Sir Park


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rt'd. N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cove, William G.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Grigg, Sir Edwaro


Bernays, Robert
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grimston, R. V.


Blindell, James
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Boulton, W. W.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hales, Harold K.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Davies, Stephen Owen
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Brown, Col. D. C (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Doran, Edward
Hanbury, Cecil


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Drewe, Cedric
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Browne, Captain A. C.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Harris, Sir Percy


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dunglass, Lord
Hartland, George A.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Butler, Richard Austen
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Carver, Major William H.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Sandys, Duncan


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwelt)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdule
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hornby, Frank
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hurd, Sir Percy
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Hurst, Sir Gerald, B.
Morrison, William Shephard
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Iveagh, Countess of
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Munro, Patrick
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Janner, Barnett
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Norie-Miller, Francis
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
North, Edward T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Nunn, William
Stevenson, James


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stones, James


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
O'Neill, Rt. Hen. Sir Hugh
Strauss, Edward A.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Law, Sir Alfred
Patrick, Colin M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Lees-Jones, John
Pearson, William G.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Lewis, Oswald
Petherick, M.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Liddall, Walter S.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Train, John


Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Pike, Cecil F.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Potter, John
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Power, Sir John Cecil
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lottus, Pierce C.
Pownell, Sir Assheton
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Mabane, William
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Islet)
Wayland, Sir William A.


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Wells, Sydney Richard


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rankin, Robert
White, Henry Graham


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Rea, Walter Russell
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


McKie, John Hamilton
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Willoughby do Eresby, Lord


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Wills, Wilfrid D.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Rickards, George William
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wise, Alfred R.


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Womersley, Sir Walter


Mailalleu, Edward Lancelot
Runge, Norah Cecil
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Manningham-Builer, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)



Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Salt, Edward W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Warrender.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)



NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grenfell, David Ross (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Cleary, J. J.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James
West, F. R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. T. Smith.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 184.]
AYES.
[4.16 p.m.


Adams Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Albery, Irving James
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Goff, Sir Park
Maxton, James


Assheton, Ralph
Gower, Sir Robert
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Astor, viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
Meller, Sir Richard James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Milne, Charles


Balniel, Lord
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Milner, Major James


Banfield John William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Groves, Thomas E.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Blindell James
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Bossom, A. C.
Hales, Harold K.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Boulton, W. W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Bowyer Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Munro, Patrick


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hanbury, Cecil
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Norie-Miller, Francis


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
North, Edward T.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Buchanan, George
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Paling, Wilfred


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Parkinson, John Allen


Butler, Richard Austen
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Patrick, Colin M.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Peake, Osbert


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Holdsworth, Herbert
Pearson, William G.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hope, Capt, Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Penny, Sir George


Cautley Sir Henry S.
Hornby, Frank
Percy, Lord Eustace


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hurd, Sir Perey
Petherick, M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Potter, John


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Christie, James Archibald
Jamieson, Douglas
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Janner, Barnett
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cleary, J. J.
Jenkins, Sir William
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Colfox, Major William Philip
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rathbone, Eleanor


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
John, William
Rea, Walter Russell


Conant, R. J. E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cook, Thomas A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cooke, Douglas
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rickards, George William


Cooper, A. Duff
Kerr Hamilton W.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cooper T. M. (Edinburgh W.)
Kirkwood, David
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ruggles-Brise Colonel Sir Edward


Cranborne Viscount
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Runge, Norah Cecil


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crossley A. C.
Law, Sir Alfred
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Culverwell Cyril Tom
Lees-Jones, John
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Daggar Geroge
Leigh, Sir John
Salt, Edward W.


Dalkeith Earl of
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Leonard, William
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lewis, Oswald
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Liddall, Walter S.
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sandys, Duncan


Dobbie, William
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Doran, Edward
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Drewe, Cedric
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Dunglass, Lord
Loftus, Pierce C.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne. C.)


Edwards, Charles
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lunn, William
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, William
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff. S.)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Evans, Capt, Ernest (Welsh Univ)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Fermoy, Lord
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McEntee, Valentine L.
Stevenson, James


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stones, James


Fremantle, Sir Francis
McKie, John Hamilton
Strauss, Edward A.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sutcliffe, Harold




Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Darby)
Watt, Major George Steven H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Thorne, William James
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Tinker, John Joseph
West, F. R.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
White, Henry Graham
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Train, John
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)



Turton, Robert Hugh
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Sir Victor Warrender and Lieut.-


Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Wills, Wilfrid D.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Alexander, Sir William
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Hartington, Marquess of
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Wayland, Sir William A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Knox, Sir Alfred
Wells, Sydney Richard


Carver, Major William H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Moreing, Adrian C.
Wise, Alfred R.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Nunn, William



Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Davison, Sir William Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Mr. Raikes and Commander


Emmott, Charles, E. G. C.
Pike, Cecil F.
Marsden

Amendments made: In page 295, line 15, leave out "commodities" and insert "goods."

In line 19, leave out "articles" and insert "goods."—[Mr. Butler.]

4.26 p.m.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: I beg to move, in page 295, line 32, at the end, to insert:
other than such charities, institutions and endowments as the Governor-General in his discretion may determine to be Federal matters.
Certain institutions and endowments are specifically mentioned in List I as being under Federal control but otherwise charities and endowments are provincial subjects. To that there is, of course, no objection, but cases may arise in future of new charities or endowments or institutions and it seems desirable to have some recognition of that fact by the inclusion of the terms of the Amendment giving the Governor-General discretion to determine whether such charities are to be treated as Federal matters or not. I only mention one possibility. Frequently in cases of famine or in other cases of urgency, large sums are subscribed, very often from this country as well as from India. These funds are placed at the disposal, probably of the Governor-General, and the whole distribution carried out under the Governor-General. Such funds ought to remain under Federal control.

4.29 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have listened to what
my hon. Friend has had to say in commendation of this proposal to the Committee and I am bound to say I have not heard any real argument for supposing that it would be wise to place upon the Governor-General this very heavy duty of looking into the affairs of charities and endowments in order to see whether in his opinion they should be Federal or Provincial matters. In the course of the duties of my office I often have to consider questions of charities to decide whether they are charities and what is the nature of the endowments and so on, and I am bound to say it is a very burdensome task very often to inform oneself as to the range of the charity and the persons who are supposed to be the objects of it. I would call my hon. Friend's attention further to the fact that his Amendment is really ineffective, because there are no words in it which would give powers to the Governor-General or to the Federation to deal with these charities, even supposing they had been declared by the Governor-General in his dicretion to be Federal matters.
Therefore, the Amendment would seem to be useless for what I gather is my hon. Friend's purpose. I am not saying that it cannot be put right by an Amendment on the Report stage if that be my hon. Friend's intention, but as it stands the words of the Amendment are very little more than mere verbiage. Even if it were right in form, I suggest that it is hardly worth pressing. Charities, after all, are likely to be local, to the extent at any rate of a Province, and they are
much more fitted to be treated as Provincial matters than Federal matters. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that the objections I have raised as to placing this heavy burden on the Governor-General, added to the other reasons, are such as to lead him to withdraw the Amendment.

4.32 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: The proposal I made was really that the Governor-General might have the power in certain specific cases. I do not want to impose on him the duty of examining into the various Provincial charities in order to find out whether he would like to make them Federal, but the instances I gave were of funds which were raised very likely by the Governor-General himself or by some other charitable authority who wished the money to be administered by the Governor-General or such trustees as he might appoint. I did not want to have any burden imposed on the Governor-General. I gave specific instances of funds raised for the victims of earthquakes and famines. Fortunately, they do not occur every day, but funds are raised specifically for that purpose. A big fund is raised in London by the Lord Mayor, the money is sent to India, and it requires to be distributed among the Provinces affected by the calamity according to their needs. I do not wish to press the Amendment to a Division, but I would like to ask whether the Government could not see their way on the Report stage to put in some phrase which would cover the cases to which I have referred.

4.34 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I appreciate a little better now what is his intention. The words of the Amendment would go much too far to effect the purpose he has in mind. If a fund be raised expressly for the purpose of the people of the whole of India, it almost goes without saying that it ought to be treated as a Federal matter. I will certainly look again into the question and see whether provision can be made for that one rather limited class of case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 295, line 38, at the beginning, insert "Inquiries and."—[The Attorney General.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 296, line 4, to leave out
"commodities and articles," and to insert "goods."

4.36 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: A similar Amendment to this was made earlier, but the Government did not give an explanation why the alteration was made. There must be some reason why the word "goods" is being inserted and I should have thought that the alteration could have been made in the beginning. We should be glad to know whether there is a distinction between these three words.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in thinking that there is a reason for making this change. There is a reason for everything that the Government do. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to refresh his memory by turning to Clause 289, he will find that the word "goods" is defined as including "all materials, commodities, and articles." Therefore, when we propose to insert "goods" we are putting it in as a sort of shorthand for a much more cumbersome phrase.

Amendment agreed to.

4.38 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 296, line 5, to leave out "India," and to insert,
the Province (and countervailing duties at the same or lower rates on similar goods manufacturer or produced elsewhere in India).
This is really a drafting Amendment and the alteration does not in any way affect the item. It is merely for the purpose of giving correct expression or value to the word "excise." "Excise" has been used as referring to the duty imposed upon articles which are consumed, say, in Province A, but have been made in Province B. That is not, strictly speaking, the right use of the word "excise," and for the purpose of avoiding that misuse we propose to insert "Province" instead of "India," and then to add the other words of the Amendment.

4.39 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: I should like to utter a word of warning. We have been trying in the course of this Bill to prevent levying an internal customs duty. It is one thing to say that a Province shall levy an excise on consumption of certain articles wherever they are manufactured,
but another to say that you shall levy an excise on the manufactures within the Province and a countervailing duty on goods manufactured elsewhere. "Countervailing" is a word which applies only, so far as I know, to a protective system. I would just ask the Government to look at these words and to consider whether, in trying to be more precise in drafting, they have not set up an internal customs duty system in India.

4.40 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In any case, this applies to a limited class of articles. It applies to alcoholic liquors for human consumption, opium, and medicinal and toilet preparations. The matter raised by my Noble Friend will be looked into. It is not the intention of the Amendment in any way to deal with the question of a protective system. It is merely intended to clarify words which were used in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

4.41 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 296, line 12, to leave out "income from agricultural land," and to insert "agricultural income."

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman for a word of explanation of items 40 and 41? Item 41 includes taxes on lands, but item 40 will merely declare taxes on agricultural incomes if this Amendment be made. Do we take it that the Amendment will leave the power of the Legislative Assembly almost identical and that the new form of words is merely regarded as superior to the original words in the Bill? Do the taxes on land and buildings mentioned in item 41 imply land ownership or the use of land? What is the technical legal definition of taxes on land and buildings?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Amendment we are discussing is consequential on the Amendment which was made to Clause 136 and to the Definition Clause. Agricultural income is the term used in the taxing Acts in India, and there is no alteration in the meaning. It is moved to bring the terminology of the Bill into line with existing legislation. The hon. Gentleman asked me in regard to the next item, but I do not know
whether it would be in order to go into that on this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: When the hon. Member asked the question it did not seem to me to be in order, but if it is just put as a question and answered shortly it may save discussion on the Schedule.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think I can add very much. The taxes on income on agricultural land are taxes on agricultural income, which is defined in the existing Income Tax Acts, and is no doubt somewhat analogous to our Schedules A and B. "Taxes on land" really means what it says. The power to put a tax on land is in the hands of the Provincial Legislature.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 296, line 19, leave out "commodities," and insert "goods."

In line 19, leave out "on turnover."

In line 35, at the end, insert:
and excluding the use of His Majesty's naval, military, and air forces in aid of the civil power."[The Solicitor-General.]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 296, line 38, at the end, to insert:
3. Removal of prisoners and accused persons from one unit to another unit.
This new item is not included, it has been pointed out, in the list as it stands. It is needed for the custody of prisoners and accused persons who may have to be transferred from one Province to another.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 297, line 16, at the end, to insert:
but not including contracts relating to agricultural land.
This Amendment, to add words at the end of the item, which refers to contracts, is intended to preserve the right of the Province to levy contracts in respect of agricultural land, such as leases. It is necessary to make this Amendment so as to preserve for the Province the right to regulate contracts in relation to agricultural land.

Amendment agreed to.

4.57 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I beg to move, in page 297, line 31, to leave out paragraph 19.
This, together with a later Amendment, is a proposal to restore health insurance from Part I of the List to Part II, that is to say, to give the Federal Government power, if it passes a law on this subject, to include in that law powers to the Federal Government to issue directions as to administration to the Provincial Government. It was agreed in the Joint Select Committee that Part II should include all these social reform matters in order to secure uniformity of action throughout the Federation. It would be unless the Federal Legislature had power to authorise the Federal Government to secure uniformity of administration as well as legislation. This particular subject of health insurance was inserted into the Concurrent List by the Joint Select Committee against the advice of the Secretary of State, and by error, no doubt, it has got put into Part I of the List, while it is obviously a matter that ought to be in Part II. Although I know that the Government would have preferred not to see this in the Concurrent List at all, I hope they will agree that it should be in Part II and not in Part I.

Mr. BUTLER: The Noble Lord is right in saying that we were obliged to put this in Part I of List III. The Noble Lord's arguments are conclusive, and we therefore accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 298, line 1, at the beginning, insert "Inquiries and".—[The Attorney-General.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 298, line 6, to leave out from "Factories" to the end of the paragraph.
This is consequential upon the new entry which we put into List I relating to minerals and mineral development.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 298, line 9, at the end, insert:
health insurance, including invalidity pensions; old age pensions."—[Lord E. Percy.]

4.51 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 298, line 9, after the words last inserted, to insert:
28. Unemployment insurance.
There are three lists in this Bill—the Federal List, the Provincial List and the
Concurrent List—and so far as I am able to gather there is nothing in the Federal List which provides for what we may call social insurance schemes to be established by the new regime in India. When we come to the Provincial List, however, there are words "Relief of the poor and Unemployment," and I want the Committee to note that to put the word "unemployment" in the Provincial List does not in the least imply that art unemployment insurance scheme will be established in any part of India. In the Concurrent List we find the words "health insurance, including invalidity pensions and old age pensions," but in item No. 27 there are the words "welfare of labour." Government representatives will probably tell us that these words are sufficient to cover the establishment of an unemployment insurance scheme in India, but I am not convinced that that will be so, because in this country long before unemployment insurance was established in 1912 the welfare of labour had been the concern of Governments for about a century. We had factory laws and several Shops Acts, and consequently I am satisfied in my own mind that the words "welfare of Labour" will not avail the new regime in India at all in the establishment of unemployment insurance. There are other provisions in this list. One relates to the regulation of labour.
I want to make a protest on behalf of the Parliamentary Labour party that in the whole of this Bill, and in these lists, the working people of India are not mentioned to the same degree, and their rights are not safeguarded to the same extent as those of civil servants, policemen, railway, Army, Navy and Air Force officials. We are proposing, therefore, to do through this proposal, what we can for the working classes of India, and we are moving this Amendment with that deliberate intention. We shall be told, of course, that unemployment insurance is a very difficult proposition for a great sub-continent like India. I agree, but we are already inserting health insurance provisions in these lists. When the health insurance and the unemployment insurance schemes were propounded in this country in 1912, there were many people who said that they would not work, but they have worked very well indeed, especially the health insurance scheme.
It is indeed a very big proposition to establish an unemployment insurance scheme for the whole of the workers of India. Let me say, however, that when our own unemployment insurance scheme was established it was a very minute one to commence with. There were comparatively very few persons included in Part II of the Act of 1912. I am not sure that there were more than 3,000,000 out of the 15,000,000 covered by the original provisions of our own unemployment scheme. We shall also be told that the difficulties of administration are enormous in India. There are the agricultural workers and the peasants and other types of people to be considered. Let me call the attention of the Government to this point. I do not think any Government in any part of the world, in establishing an unemployment insurance scheme, would not commence on a small scale as we did. In the 21 years' experience we have had we have covered in the main only the industrial workers; we have not yet admitted farm workers into the scheme. Neither our agricultural workers nor domestic servants are yet included. We are very anxious to see this proposal adopted so that the working-classes of India, however suspicious they may be of the other provisions of this Measure, and however much they criticise the Bill, will find that the plans we have adopted to cover the incidence of unemployment and invalidity in our own land will be extended through this new Measure to the vast population of India. I hope that the Government will see their way clear to adopt this Amendment.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The item "unemployment insurance" is not to be found in any of the Legislative Lists. This is not from any wish to ignore Indian labour, but arising from the facts of the Indian situation. It is not that there is no good will towards labour, but because of the conditions of Indian labour itself, which differs, totally from labour in this country. It is very difficult to estimate the amount of industrial labour, and, when it is possible to pin down industrial labour in figures, it must be remembered that industrial labour goes backward and forward seasonally between the towns and the villages. This return on the part of industrial labour in India means that there
is no need for an unemployment insurance scheme, because it very often depends upon their own families. Labour also is imperfectly organised and very difficult to find in a settled place, and to arrange the lists upon which unemployment insurance and an unemployment insurance scheme could be organised is a matter of some difficulty. This item does not at present appear in the lists, but we think there should be no impediment in the future if a scheme be introduced in India. I can hold out no hope for the immediate future, but, if there be a scheme, it is not up to us to stop it. Under the Bill the residual powers of the Governor-General would give him power to allocate it to one list or another. We consider it would be legitimate to accept this Amendment and insert it in the place suggested. We have no wish to deny labour its proper place. The Government are, as they have been, amenable on such matters.

Amendment agreed to.

5.0 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 298, line 16, to leave out from "Persons," to the end of the paragraph, and to insert:
subjected to preventive detention under Federal authority.
This deals with persons detained under Federal authority. Persons who are detained by orders of a Province will also come under Item 1 of this, but the purpose of the Amendment is to make it plain that Provincial authority will be empowered to legislate for treatment of persons who are detained under Federal authority as well as to make provision for persons detained under Provincial authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 298, line 18, at the beginning, insert, "Inquiries and."[The Attorney-General.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 298, to leave out lines 22 to 29.
This is an Amendment consequential on a statement made earlier of the intent to revise the railway definitions and to insert them on the Report stage in Clause 289.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Seventh Schedule to the Bill."

5.2 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: There is just one matter to which I should like to draw attention before we part with this Schedule. Unfortunately, Sir, you did not see your way to call my Amendment on the Paper to omit the words, "State lotteries," in paragraph 46 of the Federal List. Before we pass this Schedule, I trust the Government and the Committee will see how undesirable it is, in view of recent events in this country, that State lotteries should be placed in the Federal List. In this country we have recently passed an Act of Parliament laying down that it is very undesirable to have any form of State or national lottery, but that it is not so immoral to have smaller lotteries. In these circumstances, it seems to me that the Provincial List is eminently the List in which the question of dealing with State lotteries should be inserted. We are now giving a Western democratic constitution to India, and we are putting in the forefront of the duties which will fall to the Federal Assembly the question of State lotteries. Having regard to the action which this Government has recently taken in forbidding State lotteries in this country, though allowing the smaller lotteries, I submit to the Government that it would be much more consistent if they inserted the words "State Lotteries" in the Provincial List rather than in the Federal List. I think it is only right that this protest should be made, in view of recent events in this country, and that the suggestion should not be made to India that one of the duties of her Central Federal Assembly should be to deal with State lotteries.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: There is a great deal which could be said on this Schedule but as it would probably be out of order to say it I will not try to do so. But one point I want to put is this: The subjects of health and education are Provincial subjects. I regret that they are not in the Concurrent List. In view of past events, supposing that the administration of these services does deteriorate very seriously, am I right in supposing that the Government can then take over the administration of them?

5.7 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: The Government have been unable—with one small exception—
to meet any single point that we have advanced. We have pointed out the extreme desirability, where you get social customs covering the whole of India and involving subjects which may cause tremendous communal difficulty, of trying to keep some central hold over them so that you could have co-ordination, and so that you would not be having different schemes advanced by different Provincial Governments. The Under-Secretary twitted me with having a great desire now to rely upon the Federal Government. I am afraid that my remarks were very dull and that he was not listening to the previous paragraph of my speech. I pointed out that we believe that British rule and guidance alone could solve these great questions, such as that of money-lending which I have been dealing with; and that so long as you had definite British partnership at the Centre you could lift these questions above the communal disturbances and difficulties, and that in that way you had some hope as time goes on—as we have indeed on other subjects—of getting things done. We have seen recent legislation in India dealing with very important matters, such as the Sarda Act, and it is the very fact that you have had the British Raj at the Centre that has made it possible for all sections of the community to look at these questions with some kind of detachment. What we have tried to point out to the Government during the discussion on these Schedules has been the fact that in a large majority of cases there will be definite communal majorities in the Provinces which will never be disturbed and which are likely to continue for all time, as in the thousands of years in India in the past. You may perhaps have changes come after four or five centuries, but very rarely sooner than that.
Take, for instance, the question of money-lenders with which we have been dealing in a recent Amendment which was defeated. It must be clear to the Committee that we may have a Hindu majority in a Province and that no legislation is going to be introduced which is going to be anti-bannia. Such a thing is almost inconceivable. The Under-Secretary referred to the case of the Punjab and he described that as a most remarkable instance of Provincial legislation. But he would agree that there are very few Provinces where that would
have been possible at the present time. The Under-Secretary says "No." With very great respect I am afraid that I must differ from him.

Mr. BUTLER: I naturally would prefer not to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I would remind him that in Bengal and the United Provinces there has been passed very strict legislation against money-lenders; and in the United Provinces in particular, where there is actually a Hindu majority, there has been the strictest legislation passed against money-lenders. In these two Provinces with large communities of Hindus and in the United Provinces with a Hindu majority legislation against money-lenders has been stiffer than in the Punjab itself.

Sir H. CROFT: With regard to the special case of the Punjab which the hon. Member mentioned, he will, I think, agree with me that there has been a considerable amount of feeling. I am informed, in fact, that the Hindus in the Punjab have petitioned the Governor-General on this question, regarding the legislation as spoliation. I think it is agreed that you have these intense feelings. The Under-Secretary and the Government as a whole have refused to regard, this matter from the point of view of the future. Will the Under-Secretary deny that it is our people who have been responsible for prompting and suggesting that these various reforms should be brought forward, although I know they have been carried out by Indian legislators? I ask the Committee to consider this: If you have five or six Provinces with overwhelming majorities of Hindu votes if the members elected to the Legislative Councils are overwhelmingly of this class, allied with the money-lending class, how can the Under-Secretary suggest that of their own volition they are going to promote legislation which is going seriously to affect the fortunes of the money-lenders in future?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke for the Socialists referred to the fact that I desired to restrict this particular class of capitalists, the moneylenders, in their operations; and he seemed to think that that was a very helpful indication of reform in my character. If he was sincere—and no doubt he was sincere in that—and if he really believes that I am right in calling
attention to this capitalist domination of the bannia in India I am surprised that he is not taking more active steps to prevent the masses of India falling permanently under the domination of what he calls a capitalist class. I leave that to the Socialist party to smoothe out in the days to come. It is because we do not believe that the Federal Government in India is likely to come into being for a very long time that we have with confidence suggested that certain powers should be retained under the Central Government, with the British partnership continued. In our belief it would have been far wiser to do this, since we all know that we are not going to see this miracle of complete federation occur for many years. We have no indication that the Princes have yet consented to join. It is because we believe that there will still be, for several years at any rate, British guidance at the Centre of the kind we desire to see continued that we have been anxious to see that not so many of these questions should be given over completely to the Provinces to decide. But the Government have gone ahead ruthlessly and like a steam-roller and they have not listened to any arguments of any kind—or at least while they have listened quite courteously they have not been in any way moved by any argument which has been advanced by their Conservative friends. But we have seen them give way on another Schedule and withdraw that completely; and we had the strange spectacle of seeing all their numerous supporters to vote against pages which were printed as part of the Government Bill.
On this Seventh Schedule we have raised four or five big subjects and asked the Government to reconsider them, but their hearts have been hardened, and they have given not the smallest indication that they would try to meet us on the most minute point. The country will realise that His Majesty's Government did not intend that this Measure should be very much altered. They have always said they were going to carry out the Report of the Joint Select Committee in almost every particular. All I can suggest is that the Report of the Joint Select Committee, including what appears in this Schedule, was all decided on by the Government long before the Committee had ever reported. All hon. Members who have
been discussing this Schedule and all the important parts of this immense Measure must have been convinced that this Measure must have been drafted long before the Joint Select Committee reported, and that we had to sit down to a fait accompli, something decided by His Majesty's Government many months ago.

5.16 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I had not intended to say anything on the Schedule, but I have been provoked by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). It is the third or fourth speech he has made on similar lines, and the burden of his remarks is always the same: that subject after subject which closely affects the social and religious customs and conditions in India ought to be transferred from the Provincial List to the Federal List, generally on the ground that the Federal Legislature is less likely to take any action which might cause trouble. If I had needed convincing that a special measure of self-government must be given to India nothing further would be needed than the tone of these speeches. Again and again it has been urged that to deal with some question—marriage, divorce, pilgrimages, moneylending—closely affecting the social habits of the people will stir up strong religious feeling, because it is a subject of prejudice, and the conclusion is drawn that any action on those subjects should be left to that body which is likely to be most timid, most inactive, most under the sway of reactionary forces. If what the hon. and gallant Member wants is that we should have a worthy legatee of the existing Government in India, I think he is right.
The Federal Legislature, as it is proposed to constitute it, will more fully carry out the policy of previous Governments in India in the matter of all those great reforms which excite strong emotion among the people, that is a policy of leaving things alone, of taking the line that the one thing to avoid is the exciting of prejudice and the stirring up of trouble. No matter how much bitter suffering there may be under the surface; so long as it is only among the inarticulate and the helpless, let it be. Unfortunately, that has been too often the attitude of the Government in India, and that tradition is much more likely
to be carried on by the Federal Legislature, with the great vested interests of the wealthy landowners and the numerous representatives of the Princes, than by the Provincial. Legislatures responsible, as they will be, to a fairly wide and democratic electorate.

5.20 p.m.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: The hon. Lady thinks that the Federal Legislature under this new Bill will be very reactionary. That is possible. The six Provincial Legislatures are practically certain to be dominated by Congress, which, as we all know, gets its funds chiefly from the richer millowners in Bombay. In the few words I am going to say I should like to support everything that has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). In the half-hour or so since I have come into the House two Amendments have been accepted, one proposed by a prominent supporter of this Measure, the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), and another which was moved by the Socialist Opposition. We here have waited day after day and moved such Amendments as have been called, and have done our best, as we believe, to improve this Bill, which we detest, which we think is a bad Measure, bad for the Indians, and for this country. Take, as an instance, the Amendment dealing with health services in India moved by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), who has great knowledge of that subject. Undoubtedly the acceptance of that Amendment would have made for the good of the country and would have improved this Bill. We have tried to move Amendments to remove irrigation from the Provincial List and put it on the Concurrent List. The people who know most about irrigation think, and I agree with them, that the irrigation service ought to be on the Concurrent List, because one big scheme, like that of the Sukkur Barrage, feeds several Provinces and States. We consider, also, that the forest service should not have been left solely on the Provincial List, but moved to the Concurrent List. Those are examples of Amendments honestly put forward for the good of the people of India and for the improvement of this Bill. We have, however, never met with the slightest encouragement. We
are looked upon as obstructionists, though there has been no obstruction all through the proceedings on this Bill. We have done our best to improve the Bill, which we detest. We shall vote against this Schedule.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. BAILEY: I have only a few observations to make on the Concurrent List, raising a point which I have raised earlier and to which I did not then get a satisfactory answer. This Concurrent List does not embrace only a few subjects, but, one would be right in saying, probably 90 per cent. of the subjects concerned with purely domestic or internal matters. The list excludes all external questions, but in the sphere of domestic policy it gives the widest powers of legislation, including such subjects as the criminal law and the liberty of the subject—and I am sure the Government are anxious to guard the liberty of the subjects under the new regime; wills, intestacy, and succession—and I am sure the Government are anxious to secure justice for those who will be inheriting property; marriage laws; laws concerning the legal, medical and other professions, affecting all professional men; boilers; the prevention of cruelty to animals; mechanically propelled vehicles. I do not desire to read through the list, the samples I have given show how vast is the range of subjects affecting the lives of the people.
Both the Provincial Legislatures and the Federal Legislature can pass laws on subjects included in the Concurrent List, and it has been obvious to the Government that unless there was some clear demarkation of the rights of the respective legislatures there might be many occasions on which an anomalous position would arise owing to one legislature passing laws which absolutely contradicted those passed by the other. In order to avoid that the Government have made the provision, which in its intention is obvious and sensible, that where provincial legislation conflicts with federal legislation the provincial legislation shall give way to the federal. If the Bill secures that any criticism such as I am making at the moment goes by the board, but if, in fact, the Government have failed in carrying out their intention it
will be possible for complete confusion to arise as to what laws the Federal Legislature may pass and what laws the Provincial Legislatures may pass. What an unhappy legacy we are handing to the Indian people. We know the difficulties which have arisen in the United States through conflict between federal and state legislation and jurisdiction, and here we are setting up the possibility of far wider divergence on a far more vast range of subjects. If the Clause dealing with repugnancy breaks down I venture to say, although it is not one of the main points of controversy, that on that rock alone the whole administration of this Measure might founder.
One thing to be regretted, although it was bound to be so in the nature of things, is that the Committee should have had to concentrate on great political issues and to leave aside the consideration of how the Measure will work administratively in matters which do not raise the great issues about which we feel so strongly. I submit that it will be exceedingly difficult to say what, in effect, a provincial legislature may and what it may not do under this provision. We shall have endless litigation. There is a point which I am raising in order that it may be clarified, because it was not made clear on an earlier occasion, when the Attorney-General did not answer the specific questions I put. I will ask the learned Solicitor-General to try to clarify those points now. I will take three subjects—the criminal law, the law of bankruptcy, and the law of marriage—and ask him how the Measure will work in regard to each. I will not say that the Attorney-General was embarrassed on the previous occasion, because I am sure he can never be embarrassed, but he did not answer the questions. Since then the Government have had several weeks to consider these, among other, points.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going beyond the bounds of order on this Schedule in asking those questions. The only question that can arise in a discussion on adding this Schedule to the Bill is the classification of the subjects in the Schedule. We cannot discuss the working of the Measure.

Mr. BAILEY: I think it was more in the letter than in the spirit that I was trespassing beyond the bounds of order. I think I shall be in order in submitting
that there really ought to be no Concurrent List and that the subjects ought to be in either the Federal List or the Provincial List, as a Concurrent List can only lead to embarrassment.

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Concurrent List has already been set up by a Clause in the Bill which has been passed.

Mr. BAILEY: I will not pursue the matter any further. It is a question to which one would like an answer, but I take it that I should be definitely out of order if I were to ask what would be the powers of Provincial Legislatures under the Concurrent List?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes.

Mr. BAILEY: If that question would be out of order, I beg the Committee's pardon for taking up time on a mistaken point which was not in order, and which I will raise upon some other occasion.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I have been somewhat shocked, during the discussions on this Schedule, at what I regard as a retrogressive move on the part of the Government. With great reluctance, I have become convinced of the value of Federation, and Amendments have been moved, one after another, pointing out very clearly that, although many of these subjects may be dealt with by a single Province, there must be a time when there will be an excellent example, such as that of the money-lenders, of a subject which would be far better taken in hand by the Federation so that there would be some method of putting pressure on the more backward Provinces in regard to their legislation. I hope that the seeming falling away of the Government from the Federal idea will not be carried too far. I see very clearly from speeches that have been made that it is essential to have more power than is conferred under the Lists, particularly for the purpose of bringing up some of the Provinces that are backward in legislation. A very large number of things which seem to go entirely to the Provinces.
I was amazed at the inclusion of State Lotteries. Are there really to be State lotteries in India? I hope not. I notice that the Attorney-General is absent when this matter is discussed.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not discuss the advisability or otherwise of legislation of a particular kind.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I shall follow your Ruling most closely. I was only expressing my dislike, in these circumstances, for State lotteries, and my suggestion had nothing to do with legislation. The provision is inserted, and it looks as if we were once again seeing the hand of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). I regret that it was put in. However much the Government may feel pressure from some quarters to put this in I hope between now and the Report stage that they will look into the whole matter and omit the item if possible. I would appeal to their better senses that they should not be too pressed on this point by the hon. Member for Bodmin.

5.35 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. J. C. Davidson): The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) is suffering, I think, under some misapprehension, and be is perhaps a little too critical. He has brought too much into the sunlight the evils of money-lenders in India. Moneylenders may in some respects be an evil, but they serve a very useful purpose if they do not exceed the natural laws of human nature. He would have liked to see the item respecting money-lenders placed in the Federal List. May I mention, as a point of history behind the present situation, that there was a Central law called the Usurious Loans Act, but it was so vague—it had to be vague—as to be ineffective, and it was never put into operation. I can only repeat what has been said by the Under-Secretary of State that, so far from the Provinces in which Hindus are in a majority having failed to deal with the matter, the matter has been dealt with most drastically in the United Provinces, and quite drastically in Bengal. Perhaps I may draw from personal experience. It is a great mistake to think that such things can only be done under the guidance of British officials. In two Indian States which I can recall to mind, legislation, initiated entirely by Indians, has been passed to regulate the excessive operation of money-lenders, and to protect the agricultural community in those States.
It is therefore a mistake to stress that point too much, and, although one acknowledges readily the great benefits that British officials have rendered to India, one must not think that Indians are not capable of realising the evils under which they live.

Sir H. CROFT: Would the right hon. Gentleman say to which States he refers?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I prefer not to do so in this instance lest there be misunderstanding, because I had failed to mention other States. In reply to the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for South Kensington. (Sir W. Davison) and the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I would point out that we should have been going a very long way if we had said that, even though India desired a lottery, there should be provision to prevent her from having a lottery. It was felt, however, that lotteries should be provided for in the Federal List, because otherwise there might be every conceivable kind of lottery organised under different conditions. Anybody with experience of certain Continental countries knows the extent to which variety in this matter can run. It was also thought that it ought to be dealt with as an All-India subject, so that the conscience of the whole people should operate if India thought it desirable to introduce a lottery.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I thoroughly agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as far as Federation is concerned. I take it that the intention is to keep the matter elastic, and not for the purpose of introducing it at any definite time?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Entirely. I can give the hon. Member that assurance.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Very great pressure has been put upon the Government by

one or two people, and I hope the Government will not respond to it.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I can give the hon. Member a complete assurance on that point also. This is purely permissive. I hope it will never go out from this Committee that we have made any definite suggestion of any sort or kind that India should have a lottery.

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind hon. Members of the Ruling which I gave. Owing, perhaps, to good nature on my part, our discussion has become rather involved, and we are getting a little too far from the question.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I find it very difficult to remain in order, and with the Committee's permission I will therefore curtail my remarks. We have had a very good discussion, and the Government have accepted one or two of the Amendments put forward from such an authority as the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock). We have been pretty fair all round, and I hope that the Committee will now come to a decision.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Is there any particular reason why this should be in the Concurrent List?

Mr. BUTLER: The history of this is that on the Joint Select Committee we were particularly asked to make this subject concurrent in order that it might receive the attention it deserves. In response to that request, we decided to place it in that part of the Concurrent List.

Question put, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Seventh Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 295; Noes, 36.

Division No. 185.]
AYES.
[5.42 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Bernays, Robert
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Addison Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Blindell, James
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Boulton, W. W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)


Albery Irving James
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Allen William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Braithwatte, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Apsley, Lord
Brass, Captain Sir William
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm. W)


Assheton, Ralph
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Christie, James Archibald


Banfield, John William
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Clarry, Reginald George


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Clayton, Sir Christopher


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Butler, Richard Austen
Cleary, J. J.


Batey, Joseph
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Colfox, Major William Philip


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Conant, R. J. E.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pike, Cecil F.


Cook, Thomas A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Potter, John


Cooke, Douglas
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cooper, A. Duff
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)
Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Copeland, Ida
Janner, Barnett
Rathbone, Eleanor


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Jenkins, Sir William
Rea, Walter Russell


Cranborne, Viscount
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
John, William
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rickards, George William


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Salt, Edward W.


Dickle, John P.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dobbie, William
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Doran, Edward
Law, Sir Alfred
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)


Drewe, Cedric
Lawson, John James
Sandys, Duncan


Duggan, Hubert John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Dunglass, Lord
Leonard, William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Lewis, Oswald
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Edwards, Charles
Liddall, Walter S.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shute, Colonel Sir John


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Loftus, Pierce C.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Fermoy, Lord
Logan, David Gilbert
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmln)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Lunn, William
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mabane, William
Spens, William Patrick


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Ganzoni, Sir John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stevenson, James


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Stones, James


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McEntee, Valentine L.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Glossop, C. W. H.
McKie, John Hamilton
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Gluckstein, Louie Halle
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Goff, Sir Park
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Goldie, Noel B.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Summersby, Charles H.


Gower, Sir Robert
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sutcliffe, Harold


Granville, Edgar
Mallalien, Edward Lancelot
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Graves, Marjorie
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thorne, William James


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffith, F. Kinqsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Meller, Sir Richard James
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Train, John


Groves, Thomas E.
Milne, Charles
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James
Turton, Robert Hugh


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Eyres
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
West, F. R.


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Morrison, William Shepherd
White, Henry Graham


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Moss, captain H. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hanbury, Cecil
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Munro, Patrick
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Harris, Sir Percy
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Norie-Miller, Francis
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
North, Edward T.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Paling, Wilfred
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Parkinson, John Allen
Womersley, Sir Walter


Holdsworth, Herbert
Patrick, Colin M.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Peake, Osbert
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Hornby, Frank
Pearson, William G.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Penny, Sir George



Howard, Tom Forrest
Percy, Lord Eustace
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sir Victor Warrender and Captain


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Petherick, M.
Hope.


Hurd, Sir Percy
Pickthorn, K. W. M.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Alexander, Sir William
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atholl, Duchess of
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hales, Harold K.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hartington, Marquess of
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Bracken, Brendan
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Lees-Jones, John
Wells, Sydney Richard


Carver, Major William H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Wise, Alfred R.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Marsden, Commander Arthur



Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Moreing, Adrian C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dawson, Sir Philip
Nunn, William
Sir William Davison and Major-




General Sir Alfred Knox.


Question, "That the Schedule be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(The Federal Railway Authority.)

5.50 p.m.

Mr. DOBBIE: I beg to move, in page 299, line 6, at the end, to insert:
and one of such persons shall be appointed by the Governor-General, after consultation with the All-India Railwaymen's Federation, as a representative of the workers in the industry.
I am hoping that the obviously moderate character of this Amendment will induce the Minister to accept it. The Eighth Schedule deals with the method of appointing the Federal Authority of the Indian Railways, and the Federal Authority may be regarded in the same light as the board of directors in this country. At the moment the appointment is being made by the Governor-General, and the number of members of the Federal Authority will be seven. We are not asking that the union should appoint a member, but we are asking that they shall be able to make a nomination, and that that nomination shall be taken into consideration by the Governor-General when the appointment is being made. Clauses 175 and 176 of the Bill lay down the function of the Federal Railway Authority, stating that the Federal Railway Authority shall construct, operate and maintain the railways; and the construction, operation and maintenance of the railways affect the whole lives of the people who are working on the railways.
Two or three times an endeavour has been made to get real recognition of the railroad workers' union in India. It has been a long and painstaking job on the part of the people who have been concerned in building up this representative body, and they have demonstrated in negotiations and by the building up of the union that they represent 100,000 railroad workers, or half the total trade union movement in India. At an inquiry which the Secretary of State instituted
in 1923 this proposition was placed before him and before the Committee, not only by the federation of railway workers in India, but by the body which represents the whole of the organised labour ideals and movements in India. In 1931 the Royal Commission on Labour in India again reviewed the situation, and they made recommendations urging the Government to give greater consideration and recognition to the union. They said in their report:
We believe that a more generous policy in respect of recognition would be to the advantage of all concerned in railway work, and we commend the matter to the careful consideration of administrations and unions.
I should be glad if the Minister, when he is replying, would say something with regard to the recommendation of the Royal Commission as to the setting up of machinery of negotiation on behalf of the railwaymen comparable with the machinery that is in operation in this country. I know that in India the same argument has been adduced which has been adduced in this country against the recognition of trade unions, but the experience of those who are in the position of controllers and of those who are in the position of workers has been such that I think that anyone who has reviewed the situation and watched the procedure of the railways since the machinery of negotiation has come into existence would agree that it has been a good thing for the railroad owners, the railroad workers, and the country in general. We believe that, if the same extension were given to the people who work on the railways in India, it would react to the benefit of those who control the railways as well as of those who work on them. The board, as at present constituted, which deals with the Government-owned railways in India, consists of six-people, of whom one deals
exclusively, or at any rate mainly, with staff matters—wages, conditions, and the general work of the staff. We believe that our proposal is a good one, and we hope that the Minister will be able to see eye to eye with us and to accept it. We believe that it would be as beneficial in India as it has been in this country. I would ask the Minister, when he is replying, to inform the Committee how far the Government have gone in giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1931 with regard to setting up machinery of negotiation in relation to the wages and conditions of railwaymen in India.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: We have heard, during the discussions on various parts of the Bill, that it is the intention of the Government to give due consideration to various classes in India, and, if that be so, I hope that organised labour in India will be taken into consideration in connection with this Amendment. The Committee will observe that the Federal railway authority which is to be set up under this Schedule is to be composed of seven people, and the Schedule goes on to say that they must have had experience in commerce, industry, agriculture, finance or administration, and so on. I am informed that the All-India Railway-men's Federation is composed of more than half of the organised trade unionists in British India, and no one can say that men who have control of a large trade union are not possessed of administrative knowledge sufficient to warrant their appointment upon a Federal authority of this kind. It may be remembered that there are in India more than 730,000 railway employés, and it follows that there should be some one on this Federal authority not only charged with the duty of looking into labour matters, but one who has also direct knowledge of the organised workers, and who can bring to bear on this authority the benefit of his experience. The Royal Commission on Labour Conditions in India, of which the late Speaker of this House was chairman, in a very excellent report a year or two ago, recommended that every encouragement should be given to the workers in India not only to be recognised from the point of view of the trade union movement, but to take an interest in the welfare of their own and other industries.
The present request is a very reasonable one, and I fail to see any sound argument against it. From the point of view of knowledge and of administration, the man who would be appointed from the All-India Federation would fulfil that request, and, if he did not, there are sufficient provisions in the Schedule to deal with the matter. The Committee should remember that this is a State-owned railway undertaking, and that there are a good many factors which go to make up a State undertaking. In a case where you have, roughly, more than 750,000 workers, it is a very modest request indeed to ask that at least there should be one representative of the trade union movement. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply will not turn down the Amendment, but will be prepared to accept it. If he does so, I am satisfied that he will get a representative with the requisite experience, and that at least it will encourage the organised workers in India to the point of view that this Government has some regard for their welfare.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. DAVIDSON: The speeches of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) were very sweet in their reasonableness, and I am sorry to have to tell them that I am not able, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment. Far be it from the Government to wish in any way to take the position that organised labour should not have its fair place in India, whether it be on the railways or in any other industry in India, but conditions of labour in India—and this is a matter which cannot be too strongly stressed, especially by those who really have experience of India—and its stage of development do not in any way resemble or approach the conditions which have been reached in this country, and to make the provision mandatory, that is to say, to compel the appointment of a representative of labour, might produce very unfortunate results in existing circumstances. On the other hand, hon. Members will realise that under the existing provisions which have been quoted by the hon. Member for Rotherham:
A person shall not be qualified…unless he has had experience in commerce, industry, agriculture, finance, or administration
it would appear to enable the appointment to be made of any suitable representative of labour to the board, and also—I am speaking subject to correction—probably under Clause 11 to be appointed as an additional commissioner to deal with the executive side of the work of the railways. We feel that it would be wise to leave the discretion to the Governor-General in his judgment to choose the right commissioner, and if it happens, as it may well happen at some time in the future if not at the present time, that some representative clearly able to speak for those who are working on the railways is a suitable man for the appointment, such an appointment might well be made, and there is no reason why it should not be made. We feel that to make it mandatory in the present conditions would not only be dangerous, but would not produce the results which hon. Members really would like to see. Therefore, we feel that we must resist the Amendment and leave the position as it is at present.

Mr. DOBBIE: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind giving a reply to the question which I asked, namely, What progress is being made, if any, in regard to the recommendation of the Commission on Labour relative to the setting up of machinery on the same basis as that in England?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I am afraid that I should not be in order in answering that question. This has to do with the setting up of a Railway Authority, and the question which the hon. Member asks is something about the existing administration in India which does not really arise under this Bill. But if the hon. Member is willing to accept the assurance, we will send him the information as to how the position stands at present.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am bound to confess that we are disappointed with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. We scarcely expected that he would fall over himself to tell us that the workers should have facilities provided for them to play a part in the direction and conduct of the Indian railways. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) put in a very good point that these railways are nationally-owned, and they are
run as a great service for the general community, and, broadly speaking, they are recognised as a very efficient service. That fact implies to some extent that the workers on the service must also be efficient. As to the condition laid down with regard to
experience in commerce, industry, agriculture, finance or administration,
we all know from our general experience that the trade union leader in India who has been able to avoid being characterised as a Communist and placed in gaol for a long period has proved himself to be a great diplomat and marvellous administrator, and one who is qualified to occupy one of the highest posts in that country. We recognise that the qualifications called for here make it extremely difficult for any organised representative to secure appointment. The seven members to be chosen by the Governor-General will almost certainly be drawn from a certain section of the community, and the most successful trade unionist, or the most successful among the Indian railway workers who has been acting on behalf of the railway workers in all their delicate negotiations, because of his general practical knowledge of the system and of the service, and of the needs and rights of the railwaymen, will probably be the last person to be considered to occupy a position on this august body.
One could give precedent after precedent for accepting the Amendment on the Order Paper. With regard to the London Passenger Transport Board, for instance, it was felt that at least one member with practical working experience of the system, who not only knew the mechanical side but the human side also, could render very real and valuable assistance to the Board in the City of London. The appointment was made, directly or indirectly, by the present Government, and, therefore, they do, on occasions, recognise ability in those who are drawn from the working classes, and who have served a term of apprenticeship and have acquired a sound and comprehensive knowledge of the undertaking of which they form a part. It could be argued that unless one had the technical qualifications he could not hope to fulfil all the obligations laid down in the Schedule. I remember that the moment the right hon. Gentleman the Member Sparkbrook
(Mr. Amery), who was a Minister of State for a good many years, and who presumably knew as much about railways as I did, was no longer a Minister, was made a director of a railway company. Quite recently another hon. Member of this House, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Lord Burghley), who is a marvellous athlete and has acquired international fame for his athletic ability, and who I am not at all sure knows anything about the management of railways, was made a railway director. With these examples before our eyes, we are more than justified in demanding that those million workpeople should have some representation, so that their human requirements shall always be in front of the body of seven who are to conduct the Indian railways.
I know that to mandate the Governor-General to do anything is very unpleasant, but why mandate the Governor-General to make any appointments at all? You saddled this one individual with the whole responsibility of the Indian railways. Why should not the Federal Government make the appointment? The idea of mandating the Governor-General with regard to the appointment of one person out of seven seems to me not to be the reason which the Attorney-General gave on a previous Debate, but a very thin excuse. From every conceivable point of view the man himself will have to satisfy the Governor-General, after consultation with the railwaymen's organisation that he is qualified for the post in that, according to the Schedule, the Governor-General has the power at any moment to terminate an appointment if the individual fails to fulfil the conditions laid down. There is every safeguard for the railways, and, in view of the fact that the wages and working conditions of those million workpeople are dependent upon the success of the railway undertaking, and the one person who would be feverishly anxious to secure the maximum efficiency and ulitimately the maximum wage and the best conditions for his late colleagues, would be the person drawn from the ranks of the railway workers, we think that a very fine case can be made out for one out of seven to represent those who actually do the job.
I am very disappointed that the right hon. Member put up all the arguments and excuses, but gave no reason why he should not accept the Amendment. We shall be obliged, despite our desire to proceed with the Bill, to go to a Division unless he is willing to undertake between now and the Report stage to reconsider the whole question, to remember the precedents that have been established in this country, the number of appointments made to boards of directors of people who do not know the first thing about those undertakings, and that he will, at least, give a chance to the best informed of the workers, the most capable and the most efficient workers who have served the railway service and the people of the country, to be appointed to the Board.

6.16 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: The Chancellor of the Duchy pointed out that it would be undesirable to make it mandatory that a particular person should be appointed. Will he make it clear whether such a person as is suggested in the Amendment could be appointed? I am rather doubtful, under the reading of the Schedule as it stands, whether such a person could be appointed. A person cannot be appointed
unless he has had experience in commerce, industry, agriculture, finance, or administration; or
if he is, or within the twelve months last preceding has been—

(i) a member of the Federal or any Provincial Legislature; or
(ii) in the service of the Crown in India; or
(iii) a railway official in India."

I should like the Government to make it perfectly clear that if a suitable railway representative were available there would be nothing to prevent him from being appointed.

6.17 p.m.

Major MILNER: The debate has proceeded upon a misapprehension. It seems to be in the mind of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that we are asking in the Amendment for a trade union official, or some similar person. What the Amendment says is that
one of such persons shall be appointed by the Governor-General, after consultation with the All-India Railway Men's Federation, as a representative of the workers in the industry.
That being so, the whole course of the argument of the Chancellor of the Duchy goes by the board. In effect, all that he said was that the conditions in India were not the same as in this country. That is no answer to the proposition in the Amendment. I imagine he means that the conditions of the railwaymen in India are not so advanced, that they are not so experienced and not so well paid, or so well cared for. That is all the more reason why the workers in the industry should have representation.
We are not even asking, as I think we ought to have asked, for a trade union nominee to be appointed, but we are asking that the Governor-General should do the All-India Railwaymen's Federation the courtesy of consulting them. It is not even proposed that the Governor-General should accept the advice of the All-India Railwaymen's Federation or, having consulted with them, that he should pay the slightest regard to what they say. All that we are asking is that the Governor-General shall consult with the railwaymen's union, and thereafter appoint someone as representative of the workers. That someone might be a person from this country. It might be my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) who has served for a long time with credit on the executive of the National Union of Railwaymen in this country. It might be the Secretary of State for the Dominions. That being so, there could be no possible objection on the part of the Government to agreeing to the Amendment. The request is that one out of seven should represent the workers, an extremely moderate request, especially as it is not made on the condition that the representative should be an official of the trade union or selected by the trade union. In the circumstances I hope that the Committee will think that it is a very reasonable and proper suggestion to make. It is a suggestion that has been adopted in connection with almost every large authority in this country, with the acquiescence of Members of the Government. That being the case, the Government would do well to accept it in this instance.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I am at a loss to understand exactly what the Chancellor of the Duchy meant when he said that it was possible for someone of
the type we suggest to be appointed within the terms mentioned in the Schedule. If we spent some time analysing the Schedule we could prove conclusively that someone who might be nominated by the Railwaymen's Union would be debarred. The Schedule is drawn in such a way as to make it practically impossible for such a person to be appointed. Assuming that the meaning of the Amendment is that a workers' representative should be one of the seven the Schedule is drawn in such a way as to prevent such an appointment. It could not be construed as meaning that someone working in a merchant's house would be a person with commercial experience, or that a person working in a textile factory would be a person possessing industrial knowledge. I am referring to the general rule in regard to these appointments. A worker in the industry under the terms of the Schedule would not be qualified to sit upon the authority. I think I should be correct in saying that an agricultural labourer, although he possessed agricultural knowledge, would not be considered qualified to sit on the board under the terms of the Schedule. With regard to finance, I do not suppose that a bank clerk would be considered a person competent to sit as a financier on the board. In regard to administration, a booking clerk, although he would have some administrative knowledge, would not be considered qualified.
The Schedule is drawn in such a way as to debar a workers' representative from appointment. I cannot see how it is possible for a workers' nominee to come within the terms of the Schedule. If the workers' organisation would have the right to nominate someone, or the Governor-General bad to consult them in the nomination of a person before that, person was selected as one of the seven, it would rule out entirely any workers who might have commercial knowledge and so on. I trust the Minister will explain how it would be possible within the terms so narrowly drawn in the Eighth Schedule, paragraph 2, for such a workers' nominee to become one of the seven persons to sit on the board. If he can convince us that it would be possible, there would be no purpose in our Amendment. The hon. Member said that there was no desire to make such an appointment mandatory. The person to be
appointed by the Governor-General will have to be chosen from the narrow circle mentioned in the Schedule. That is mandatory. In other words, the persons appointed must be drawn from persons possessing knowledge of certain kinds. Therefore, the Governor-General's scope of appointment is narrowed down. He cannot do what he likes. He must do something within the words of the Schedule. It would not cast a reflection upon the Governor-General or interfere with his prestige if he had to go a little further than is contained within the words of the Schedule. I ask the Minister to meet our case in that regard. I think the Under-Secretary said that it would be possible for a workers' representative to be appointed within the terms of the Schedule. If that assurance can be given, we shall be satisfied that it will meet the case.

6.28 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Suppose I were to brush aside the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) on the ground that he was a man who had no knowledge of industry or administration. I should expect him to rise and convince me by a very short statement of his record that I was entirely wrong, and I hope that I should make a handsome withdrawal. We do not draw the distinctions between those engaged in industry that right hon. and hon. Members opposite sometimes draw. In the words of the Schedule there are words which are specially applicable as a directing sign to industry. There are the words "commerce, industry, finance and administration." In our view it is quite clear that someone who has been a worker on the railway in any capacity, and afterwards has experience in administration in connection with organised labour, would clearly be qualified under the two heads of industry and administration. We contend that such a man in India would be eligible.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the Solicitor-General be good enough to apply his mind to the paragraph which declares that no person can become a member of the Federal Railway Authority unless he has been a member of the Federal or any Provincial Legislature?

6.30 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think the hon. Member has misinterpreted the provision. We do not want to add unnecessary words to the Schedule, but we desire that someone who has had practical experience and has emerged as an administrator should be eligible to take his full place in the work of the board. We do not want to encourage what the Amendment might be supposed to suggest, that is, the placing on this board, in this or any other connection, of people who would regard themselves as representing interests rather than as persons who with their colleagues are carrying on the work of a great undertaking, and who are to have due regard to all interests which come into the scheme. We do not favour the idea of representatives of workers or others being put on this board as representatives, but if men with the necessary administrative experience and practical knowledge are available they should be eligible for appointment. That is really as far as we can go.

6.31 p.m.

Major MILNER: The objection of the Government now is to any one sitting on this Federal Railway Authority purely as representing the workers, and I, therefore, draw the inference that they would have no objection to a man being appointed on the Federal Board who was nominated by the workers, as long as he regarded himself as a member of an authority responsible for its general interests. That is the position of the representative of the Transport and General Workers' Union who sits on the London Passenger Transport Board. He does not represent simply the interests of the workers, their conditions and wages, but takes his full place with the other members of the Board in running that great undertaking. That is all we are asking for in this Amendment. We are not asking that a particular individual should represent the interests of the workers. We want a representative of the workers on the board who will work with the other members in the general interest. The Chancellor of the Duchy gave the impression that the Government had no objection to a workers' representative on the board, but that they did not desire that his appointment should be mandatory on the Governor-General. The Government have given special instruct-
tions to the Governor-General to regard certain matters as his special responsibility. The Chancellor of the Duchy when be was appointed a member of the Commission was instructed to have special regard to particular questions, as was the Under-Secretary of State, who was to have special regard to the interests of women. Is it not possible in the Instrument of Instructions to direct the Governor-General to have special regard to the appointment of a representative of labour on the board? If that assurance could be given, I think hon. Members on this side would take another course on this Amendment. The Governor-General might be instructed to consult the All-India Railwaymen's Federation on the matter, but at any rate there is no excuse for the particular line which the Government are taking, and I hope that the matter will be reconsidered.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: If the Solicitor-General will look again at the Schedule I think he will find that some additional words should be added. Take the case of a man who has been prominent in labour organisations and has attained a position of authority and trust; he may never himself have been engaged in any administration whatever, yet he might be just the man to secure the confidence of the workers and be capable of giving advice on labour conditions. It would be no harm if such words were inserted. There should be no doubt as to the freedom of choice on the part of the appointing authority, but I hope that before the Report stage additional words will be found which will meet the situation.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It seems to me that the position as it arises in paragraph 2 has not been dealt with in the Government reply. It says that a person shall not be qualified to be appointed to the Authority if he has been within the last 12 months a member of a Provincial Legislature, in the service of the Crown in India, or a railway official in India.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): There is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) dealing with that point which I hope to call.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In that case I will not go into the matter any further at the moment.

Mr. DAVIDSON: While I did not give a specific assurance that we were prepared to add any words to make the meaning clear, I can say that we will look into the matter before Report. The Government hold that the case is already covered, and, while I cannot give any promise to add further words, which I think it will be found are not necessary, we will look again into the matter. Our desire is not to exclude from the Bill or the Schedule the possibility of some representative of labour finding a place on the board.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 299, to leave out lines 11 to 14.
I am moving this Amendment on behalf of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), and the proposal is to leave out the words:
if he is, or within the twelve months last preceding has been—
(i)a member of the Federal or any Provincial Legislature.
The effect of these words in the Schedule is that you will exclude a large number of people who have great administrative experience in India. No one who has been working on an Indian railway for the last 12 months could be a member of the board. The provision is drawn in a very narrow way. I think it would be easier to meet this point if the Government would cut out this Sub-section. It is rather a pity to lay down a hard-and-fast rule that all people who have been Members of Parliament, a trade union representative who has been a Member of Parliament, in the service of the Crown, or has been working on the railways are to be cut out from serving on the Railway Authority.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the three Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) were taken together. The second Amendment is to leave out line 15, "in the service of the Crown in India"—and the third Amendment is to leave out line 16—"a railway official in India."

Sir BASIL PETO: The provision in the Schedule says that no one who has been
during the last 12 months in the service of the Crown is eligible for appointment. It is a most extraordinary provision. I should have thought that anyone who has spent the greater part of his life and has had considerable experience in railway administration as a servant of the Crown in India is the very man who is most qualified to be a member of the Railway Authority. An explanation of the reasons for this provision should be given.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The doubts and questions of hon. Members upon this point are quite legitimate, and I will try to explain how this decision was arrived at. This matter of the constitution of the Federal Railway Authority was discussed at great length about two years ago by a Committee consisting of eminent representatives of railways in this country, distinguished Indian statesmen and representatives of public opinion in this country. The evidence is set out on page 232, as Appendix (iv) to that part of the Report of the Joint Select Committee. It was their opinion that this Federal Railway Authority should be constituted in this way, and they made special reference to the particular provisions upon which hon. Members have asked questions. They referred in particular to a person who had been a servant of the Crown in India, or a railway official, and considered that within a period of their having held their last posts they should not be members of the Railway Authority. The Federal Railway Authority is the great board of management of this vast network of railway systems all over India, and it has been thought that as far as possible it should be free from any political influence or ties.
It was thought desirable to lay down these provisions for its constitution and the Federal Railway Authority is as explained in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 and so forth on the next page of the Schedule. Provision is made there for the executive staff of the authority, the railway commissioners. Take the case of an official. It has been thought wise that if an official is retained in the service of the Indian railways in a high capacity, his best place would probably be on this staff in the very important post of a railway commissioner, and that the Federal Railway Authority, which is
the board of management, should include membership subject to these limitations.
With regard to men who have been in the service of the Crown in India, I agree that at first sight it would seem suitable that they should be put on the Authority if they are suitable candidates; but hon. Members will notice that there is the limitation of a year, and that after the period of 12 months it is possible for a man who has been in the service of the Crown in India, or has been a railway official, to be put on the Railway Authority. In view of the fact that this proposal has some history behind it and that it has been agreed by a large section of British and Indian expert opinion, and that these persons can perhaps find their most useful tasks as members of the executive staff of the railways, as railway commissioners, and that there is a limitation of 12 months only, we prefer the terms of the Schedule as it stands.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I was not very clear about these provisions when I started the Debate on this matter. I asked why a member of a Provincial or Federal Legislature should be excluded. It seemed to me rather a pity to exclude such people, who may have left Parliament for one good reason or another. Would it not be possible to reduce the period of 12 months to six months? There may be people who have been in the service of the Crown and are excellently qualified for this position. They might come to England on six months' leave, but if they stayed away from India for 12 months they might never go back.

6.50 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: Will the Under-Secretary say why a man who has been in the service of the Crown in India becomes any more qualified to be a member of the Railway Authority at the end of a waiting period of 12 months than he would be directly after he left the service of the Crown? Has he to be fumigated or disinfected before he is safe to go on this Authority? I cannot see any meaning in the delay.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: This paragraph refers to service of the Crown in India. What about service of the Crown in England?

6.51 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: In reply to the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), I do not wish to cast any slur on the servants of the Crown, many of whom might be found to be suitable candidates; but this matter was carefully reviewed by the Committee on Indian Railways and they came to their conclusion with a view to getting as independent minds as possible on the railway authority. Some people who have spent their lives in the Government service may not be entirely above suspicion, and although I, personally, would not share that view, it is the view of certain interests in the country. The Federal Railway Authority is an extremely small directional body, and it is thought better not to make a direct appointment from the service of the Crown to this authority. I think it wise to leave the matter as it is in the Schedule.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked whether we would be willing to reduce the period from 12 months to six, and he said quite truly that if a man had been home 12 months he was perhaps not so inclined to return to India as he would be after a shorter stay in this country. I will promise to look into the question of putting into the Schedule a period of six months instead of 12. I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his return, and with him look into the matter. On the question about membership of a Federal or Provincial Legislature, the object there is to keep this authority free from any suspicion that a politician may be passed immediately from the Legislature to this Railway Authority. We are determined to try to keep this authority outside political influence, so that it may conduct its very onerous duties in an atmosphere free from any sort of suspicion.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: In view of the Under-Secretary's statement that he will consider the possibility of reducing the period of 12 months to six months, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.54 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 299, line 28, at the end, to insert:
4. The Governor-General, exercising his individual judgment, may make rules providing for the appointment of temporary members to act in place of any members temporarily unable to perform the duties of their office.
The Amendment speaks for itself. It enables the Governor-General, in the exercise of his individual judgment, to make rules providing for the appointment of temporary members to act in place of any members temporarily unable to perform the duties of their office. The functions of this Board are of very great importance, and the case might arise where a member of it has to be away for some time.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Do I understand that the original members of this body are appointed, not by the Governor-General in his discretion nor exercising his individual judgment, but on the advice of his Ministers? If so, what justification is there for the change?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: They are appointed by the Governor-General in his discretion. This Amendment deals not with the actual appointment but with the rules as to temporary appointment. I have no doubt that the rules will make proper provision, in the event of a temporary man having to take the place of what I might call the Governor-General's man, for the Governor-General to have the right to appoint.

Mr. JONES: Does it not mean here the same thing as we have understood the phrase "in his individual judgment" to mean in the past? Does it not mean that he acts after having consulted his Ministers, but not necessarily having accepted the advice of his Ministers?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes.

Sir B. PETO: Does the disability in regard to a servant of the Crown, which we were discussing on the last Amendment, apply here in the case of a temporary appointment? If so, it seems to me that it might be extraordinarily inconvenient to the Governor-General to be unable to appoint anyone who is in the service of the Crown to a temporary
position. There might be no one else who could so appropriately fill the position temporarily.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: My opinion is that the rule-making power would not enable the conditions for permanent members to be over-ridden in the case of temporary members. I will, however, look into the point, and into the question of inconvenience which has been referred to.

6.59 p.m.

Major MILNER: I understood that the words "exercising his individual judgment" meant that the Governor-General had first to consult his Ministers, but of course not necessarily to follow their advice. Is the learned Solicitor-General quite sure about that? If so, is it not better to set that out in a definition clause. Unless the matter is dealt with somewhere in the Bill, a Governor-General in the future might read these words as giving him absolute discretion in making such appointments as he thought fit. If there is any doubt about it, I suggest that some words might be inserted to the effect that the Governor-General exercises his individual judgment after consultation with his ministers, or whatever the appropriate phrase may be, so as to make the matter perfectly clear.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not want to go again over a matter which has been dealt with many times. We think the Bill is best drafted in this way. The words "individual judgment" are used when the question which is being dealt with is within the field of Federal responsibility, and is therefore by its nature a mater with which Ministers deal, and with which they are responsible for dealing. The idea is that these are matters for which the primary responsibility falls on the Ministers, and the insertion of the phrase "individual judgment" merely means that in the last resort, if the Governor-General disagrees with the ministers, he can overrule them and exercise his individual judgment.

Amendment agreed to.

7.1 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 299, line 39, after the second "of," to insert "or tenders for."
This Amendment and the following Amendment add to the Clause the ques-
tion of being concerned with holding a tenure or tendering for a contract, as well as actually holding a contract.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Does this particular phraseology cover the case of a person who is not himself directly and solely, in his own person, a contractor, but is a contractor as a member of a company or a corporation?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Read line 41.

Mr. JONES: That is quite so. I beg pardon. That is quite clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 299, line 42, after "holding," insert "or tendering for."[The Solicitor-General.]

7.4 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 300, line 15, to leave out "Authority, subject to confirmation by the."
The Committee will remember that when this matter was previously considered, some doubt was cast upon the exact method of appointment of the chief railway commissioner, the head of the executive staff of the railway. There was some doubt as to whether this man should be a man who had the Governor-General's approval, and my right hon. Friend said at that period that it was his intention that this should be so, and these words are being left out and others inserted in order that the Clause shall read that the chief railway commissioner "shall be appointed by the Governor-General exercising his individual judgment, after consultation with the Authority." Our object, therefore, is to say that this man shall be appointed by the Governor-General exercising his individual judgment, but after consultation with the Authority. In the first part of the Amendment we have the approval and support of some who do not often support us, that is, the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and his friends. In the second part, we stand alone. We think that the Governor-General should consult with the Authority before he makes this appointment, although the last word in case of disagreement will be with him. This, therefore, really implements the statement made by my right hon. Friend at an earlier stage of our proceedings and
makes the appointment of the chief railway commissioner, the head of the executive staff of the railway, perfectly clear.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: There is an Amendment down in our name. I do not know whether it will be called or not, but we assume not, and, therefore, I take the opportunity now to call attention to it in relation to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. The effect of our Amendment is of course clear. We take strong objection to this steady tendency, to which we have called attention from time to time in the discussions on this Bill, of concentrating unduly heavy responsible duties in the hands of the Governor-General, reserving to him decisions of very first importance in relation to the future of Indian affairs. It may be—I am not discussing it at the moment—that there is a case for reserving to the Governor-General certain functions and decisions without relation to the authority at all, although I can think of very few cases of that sort, but I certainly cannot agree in relation to the Railway Authority that the Federal Government should have no decisive word in the matter.
We believe that, apart altogether upon the strategic aspect of these railways—and I admit that is there—there is the normal, commercial importance of the railways. There is the importance of the railways from the point of view of the general well-being of the country. I cannot understand the case for taking out of the hands of the federal authority—not completely, because under the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Governor-General is to consult the authorities—the final decision. I have argued this so frequently that it is difficult to find anything new to say on the matter, but however old the case is, it is so strong that it is worth repeating. Sooner or later these railways will have to be governed by the Indian authorities themselves, and I am quite sure that it is worth while familiarising them at as early a date as possible with the actual task of administration of such an important function.
I do not know that there is any reason to suppose that the Indian Federal authorities would be any more prone to make mistakes or to make bad appointments
than the Governor-General himself, exercising his own individual judgment. In any case, if their advice is worth seeking by the Governor-General, and that is provided for in this paragraph, surely that advice, if sufficiently good to be sought, ought to be good enough to be depended upon in the matter of making a final decision. We really must protest against this incorrigible habit that the Government are disclosing from time to time of not trusting the Indian people. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he knows that it is so. He says "We will talk to them; we will ask their opinion; but, in the matter of the final voice, we cannot leave it to them. We cannot trust them as far as that. We must leave it to the Governor-General." That is lack of trust, lack of faith and lack of confidence, and it is that element of the matter to which I wish to object. We shall invite the Government once again to consider the proposal we are making.

7.11 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: My name is down to this Amendment, and I am one of those Members of the House who do not often on this Bill vote with the Government. I wish to thank them for accepting that portion of our Amendment to which our names are put down. I believe it would have been stronger and better without the addition the hon. Gentleman proposes. On the other hand, it is definite and I desire to offer my acknowledgments. I am not sure whether the other Amendment, line 24, will be called, so I will reserve my remarks.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I had better inform the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is not going to be called.

Colonel GRETTON: Then I want to draw attention to an anomaly which appears to be left. The Government is dealing with the case of the chief railway commissioner, who is to be appointed by the Governor-General after taking the advice of the Authority and of his Ministers, but, apparently, in the case of dismissal, the Authority acts, and the Governor-General will ultimately have a veto. The Governor-General has responsibilities for finance, the maintenance of order and other matters of that kind,
and the chief executive officer of the Railway Authority is appointed by the Governor-General. But when political opinions arise and questions of that kind produce strong feeling that the chief commissioner should be dismissed and another appointed, the Governor-General has weaker powers in making this appointment than, apparently, he has in the first place. I would suggest that at such a time the power to retain a man who is trusted, and who is competent to carry out the railway duties necessary in order that the Governor-General can fulfil his special responsibilities, should be as strong as possible and the Governor-General should have all the freedom that can be afforded him to exercise his individual judgment, after consulting those constitutional authorities whom it is his duty to consult. I hope the Government will be able to give a satisfactory explanation as to why they do not accept the second Amendment, and I would suggest that it is a matter which, if they have not fully considered it, might very well be examined.

7.14 p.m.

Major MILNER: There is another serious objection to be added to those urged by my hon. Friend in front of me to the course which is being adopted by the Government. I should have thought that, it was essential, with a large undertaking such as this, to avoid even the' possibility of any conflict between the Federal authority running the railways throughout the whole country and the chief railway commissioner. For that reason, if for no other, I should have thought it was extremely desirable that he should be appointed by the Federal Authority, from whom he is going to receive his instructions for the future, and whom he is going to serve. The Government do not, apparently, take that view. They say, "It is true we are going to consult with you, but we shall not necessarily take your advice. We may appoint a man who is anathema to you, whom you may think not willing to carry out your orders, or who is unsatisfactory in another respect." It seems the height of absurdity to take the course proposed by the Government in this Amendment.
There is a direct possibility, to say the least of it, of conflict arising between the chief railway commissioner and the
Federal Authority. The Federal Authority in this case are in the position of the directors of a railway. I never heard of a case in which the directors of a railway did not reserve to themselves the right, without interference from any person, however highly placed, to appoint their own chief executive officer. The Government for no apparent reason are making a great mistake in this matter. There is a further point which I hope the Law Officers of the Crown will forgive me for bringing up again. Although I always defer to their rulings in these matters, I am not at all happy about the explanation which has been given of the expression, "exercising his individual judgment." The Solicitor-General told us that it would be the duty of the Governor-General, as a matter of course, to consult the Federal Authority, and that the insertion of these words was intended to mean that this subject was one which would come under the Federal Ministers. Curiously enough, I understand, certain words are to be added to this Schedule.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is with regard to the Authority.

Major MILNER: Yes, I understand that words are to be added to the effect that the Governor-General is to act on his individual judgment after consultation with the authority. First, we have the interpretation of these words, "exercising his individual judgment," that they imply consultation with the Ministers whose responsibility this matter will be. According to the Solicitor-General's first interpretation the Governor-General is to consult the Ministers. Secondly, because of the other words which it is proposed to add, he has to consult the authority. It seems a curious way to go about this business. We do not mention the fact—although according to the Solicitor-General it is to be inferred—that the Ministers have to be consulted. But it is considered necessary to insert the words, "after consultation with the authority." I submit that if consultation is to take place with the Ministers it ought not to be left to inference. It ought to be stated in all cases with whom consultation is to take place. The Schedule should read, "appointed by the Governor-General after consultation with his Ministers," or "after consultation with the Authority," as the case may be.
It should not be stated expressly in the one case and not stated expressly in the other case. I do not know whether the Law Officers can offer any further explanation of the matter, but it seems to me, as yet, to be far from clear.

7.18 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I must apologise to the Committee for intervening again on a matter which has been discussed previously but as my hon. Friend opposite has put a particular point I wish to answer him. With all respect to him, he starts with a misconception. The basis of the Bill is that the executive authority of the Federation is in the Governor-General. Therefore, executive acts are the Governor-General's acts, and in the absence of any specific words he, of course, acts on the advice of Ministers. If the words, "in his individual judgment," are inserted, they are inserted in respect of matters such as this, which are within the ministerial sphere. Therefore, I deprecate the words which my hon. Friend opposite wants to put in the Bill—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have since looked up the previous Debate on this subject which I find took place as long ago as 28th February. On that occasion the Committee came to a decision with regard to these particular definitions and, therefore, we cannot reopen that question now.

Major MILNER: I am not raising the point that any particular definition should be put into the Schedule, I am merely asking for an explanation of these particular words in this particular connection. We understand that something is going to be added here which was not proposed when the previous Debate took place. As the circumstances are different I submit that I am entitled to ask for the explanation which I understood the SOLICITOR-GENERAL was about to give.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I only wish to point out that this matter was previously discussed and that an explanation was given of the meaning of these phrases and the Committee came to a decision. We are bound by that decision, but the hon. Member is entitled to ask for an explanation of the effect of these words as they appear here.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not wish to go outside your Ruling, Captain Bourne. It relieves me of the necessity of going into a great deal of matter which I was conscious had been gone into before, although I could not remember the exact occasion. But I think that, without trespassing, I might say this. The hon. Member opposite described the effect of these words as meaning "after consultation with the minister." I do not say that that is wholly inaccurate but I would rather put it the other way. This is a mater which will come before ministers in the ordinary course. It is a matter the responsibility for which is on ministers. The words, "in his individual judgment," mean that when the excutive act, which runs in the name of the Governor-General, finally comes to be performed, he can, if he thinks right, act on his individual judgment and contrary to the advice of ministers. These matters are really matters the primary responsibility for which is on ministers and it would not only be contrary to our previous decision but it would not be an accurate statement of the position, to say that the Governor-General acts on his own individual judgment after consultation with ministers. This is a thing which is within the ministerial field. In regard to the later Amendment which I understand is also under discussion at present as to inserting "after consultation with the authority," that of course is a different matter because the authority there is quite a distinct body from the ministers.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: We are still in doubt as to the precise meaning of these words. I understood all along that when we used the phrase, "exercising his individual judgment," it was understood to mean that the Governor-General or the Governor, as the case might be, was arriving at a decision, having first, automatically, taken the advice of responsible ministers. Now, in this case, it would appear that there are three parties concerned in the decision. There is the authority and there is, by implication, the Federal Ministers and there is the Governor-General. Is the procedure to be that the chief commissioner is appointed by the authority but his appointment is to be subject to two further decisions? By implication that clearly is the case. It must be subject
to confirmation by the Governor-General. He already has consulted the Federal authority whose advice he may or may not follow. Is not that so?

7.24 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: As I said when I was moving this Amendment, there was such doubt about the original drafting of this part of the Schedule that my right hon. Friend said he would look into it, and the result of that examination is the proposed insertion of these new words which make the situation perfectly clear. We are dealing with a very important appointment, that of the head of the executive staff, and it is fair that the Governor-General, when considering that appointment, should have before him the views of the Authority and should have consultation with the Authority. Then he exercises his individual judgment and that, on the implication which the hon. Gentleman himself described, means that having consulted Ministers he makes up his own mind. Let us hope that there will be no difference of opinion. If there were any difference of opinion he would have the last word. Therefore, this important officer is appointed after consultation with the Authority whom he will serve and with the Ministers who are interested, and he is appointed by the Governor-General who is also interested.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: This Amendment was originally put down in my name as a sequel to the discussion which we had upon Clause 176. Its effect is to alter the bias in this matter. As it was originally conceived the railway authority would pick out the man they thought best and submit his name to the Governor-General through the Ministers. Therefore, fundamentally, the initiative was bound to come from the authority. Now the initiative in theory would not come from the authority though it might in practice. The hon. Member opposite thought that this was a most reactionary thing to do, but I think I can give him an analogy in this country. Permanent secretaries to Government Departments in this country are appointed by the Prime Minister who is under no obligation to consult, for example, the Minister of Labour when deciding who is to be chief permanent official in the Ministry of Labour. In actual practice no doubt he does so because we do these things sensibly. But it has been regarded
as proper that the selection of the high commands in our Government Departments should be the responsibility of the chief Minister of State, and should not be the responsibility of what may be called subordinate Ministers.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: But if an appointment made by the Prime Minister were challenged in this House and if he were defeated on it, it would mean the defeat of the Government.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I never heard of a case in which a promotion in the Civil Service has in itself been the subject of a vote of confidence in the House. At any rate the question is whether the authority is to be the appointing body or the Government. In this country if we are appointing a Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade it is not the President of the Board of Trade who takes the initiative. That initiative is vested in the Prime Minister, and I suggest that that provides a very close analogy with what we are doing here. I am not sure that the general manager of the British Broadcasting Corporation does not come into the same category but I am sure that I could produce a substantial number of cases in this country in which executive officers are appointed by an outside authority who is not even under any obligation to consult with the persons under whom the appointee will ultimately have to act.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I should have replied previously to the point raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) and thank him for raising the matter. I have looked into the point which he has put to the Committee and I am advised that what he desires is already covered and that the only effect of the Amendment which he wished to move would be to leave out the consultation with the Authority in the unfortunate event of the question of the chief commissioner's dismissal arising. Let me assure him that under the present drafting the last word in connection with the dismissal of the chief railway commissioner would rest with the Governor-General. The chief railway commissioner could not be dismissed without the decision of the Governor-General acting in his individual judgment. I hope that will reassure the right hon. and gallant
Gentleman. Apart from the question of contact with the Authority, which I think is legitimate because this officer is to be the servant of the Authority, the ultimate responsibility in case of difference would rest with the Governor-General.

7.30 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: There appears to be now an apparent contradiction in that there are two different processes in the appointment and dismissal. They will raise doubt and confusion, and I suggest that, having made the alteration in the method of appointment, the question of dismissal should be made equally clear, and there should be no doubt that the Governor has full power in both processes.

Sir B. PETO: It seems to me to be very doubtful whether the authority can dismiss a chief executive officer who was appointed by the Governor-General direct. Technically the wording must be wrong if you leave it in its present form, for you say that the appointment of this principal officer is to be the appointment of the Governor-General exercising his individual judgment, and, if he is dismissed, he is dismissed by the authority, of whom, the Under-Secretary says, he is the servant. Technically, he is the servant of the person who appoints him, namely, the Governor-General. Therefore, nobody else can dismiss him. I am sure that that point must be looked into again before the Report stage. The person who appoints him ought to be the person who dismisses him, and the process of appointment and dismissal should be the same.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 300, line 16, at the end, to insert, "after consultation with the authority."[Mr. Butler.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

NINTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions of Government of India Act continued in, force with, Amendments until the establishment of the Federation.)

7.34 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 307, line 28, at the end, to insert:
or
(d) relating to tribal areas.
This Schedule sets out the provisions of the Government of India Act which are
to remain in force until the establishment of the Federation. Paragraph (3, vi) deals with expenditure classified by the order of the Governor-General in Council as ecclesaistical, external affairs, and defence. These are non-votable heads. In Clause 11 of the Bill the Governor-General's functions in relation to tribal areas has been dealt with as a separate head to that of external affairs, and, in order to bring this provision in the Schedule into line with the terminology of the Bill, this Amendment adds a fourth head, namely, "tribal areas."

7.35 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: It is a little difficult to remember precisely what we have decided weeks and months ago, and I may therefore perhaps be forgiven if I ask a question. Even though we insert this further item relating to tribal areas, and therefore make the question of the provision of money non-votable, would that preclude the discussion of the administration of these tribal areas in the Centre or the Province?

7.36 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, these are transitional provisions. Therefore, any provisions in the Bill which have been passed relating to what can or cannot be discussed in the Federal Assembly do not arise here. The Schedule merely contains provisions that will operate until Federation is established, and it is a continuation of the existing provisions of the present Government of India Act during the transitional period. Nothing that is in the Bill as to what can or cannot be discussed in the Federal Assembly when it is set up applies to anything in this Schedule.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. JONES: I do not understand that these subjects—ecclesiastical, external affairs, and defence—are reserved in relation to any transitional period. I understand they go on even after Federation comes into operation. The same, therefore, will presumably apply to the new subject of the Amendment. If that be so, when the Federation and the Provinces are in existence, will they, by reason of the fact that they are precluded from voting this money or withholding this money, be precluded from discussing the administration of these affairs?

7.38 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not want to show any unwillingness to answer questions, but we must keep within certain limits of Debate. If the hon. Member will look at the heading of this Schedule, he will see it is—
Provisions of Government of India Act continued in force with Amendments until the establishment of the Federation.
That is all it is. Therefore, it seems to be wholly out of order for me to enter into a discussion as to what may or may not be discussed in the Federal Assembly when Federation is set up and when ipso facto the operation of the Schedule comes to an end. This Amendment merely extends with minor modifications the existing provisions of the Government of India Act during the transitional period. It is an example of a minor modification which has to be made in order to bring the terminology of the Schedule in accordance with the terminology which we have used in the Bill. It has nothing whatever to do with the power of the new Federal Assembly, nor indeed does it in any way affect the power of the existing Assembly, as to what it can or cannot discuss. My hon. Friend knows that, broadly speaking, under the present position the Budget and defence can be discussed, and there are certain powers in the Governor-General whose sanction has to be obtained before discussing certain other matters, but it would not be right to go into that question on this Amendment.

Mr. JONES: I am sorry to be persistent on this question, but it may be due to my stupidity—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have now become seized of this question. The question is to what is discussable in the new Federal Legislature does not arise on this Amendment or this Schedule. The question whether this can or cannot be discussed in the existing Assembly, if these words are put in, will obviously follow the practice which now goes on.

Mr. JONES: That was not quite the point I was raising. In the Schedule there is reference to provisions that will prevail, not merely in the interregnum, but after the Federation has been established. There is reference to functions which would be discharged not only during the interregnum, but after the Federation is in operation—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman ought to raise that matter on the question, "That this Schedule be the Ninth Schedule to the Bill."

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Ninth Schedule to the Bill."

7.41 p.m.

Mr. JONES: I shall not repeat my question, but try to resume where I left off. My difficulty is this. If this Schedule only refers to the period of the interregnum, where may we find the authority for continuing the functions after the intervening period has come to an end? Does this Schedule lapse completely when the Federation has been set up, and if it does lapse, does it affect at all the question of these four points—ecclesiastical, external affairs, defence and tribal areas? In Clause 11 we have only three of the functions—ecclesiastical, external affairs and defence—

7.42 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: "Tribal areas" is mentioned at the end of Subsection (1) of Clause 11. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained to the Committee that it is necessary to put in this item in the Schedule, otherwise Clause 11 would lead to the inference that where "external affairs" were mentioned without "tribal areas" it would not include "tribal areas." That is why the Amendment was moved to put "tribal areas" in the Schedule. The hon. Gentleman is right in his understanding that these provisions in the Ninth Schedule are only to last for the period up to the establishment of the Federation. If he will look at Clauses 290 and 295 he will see that that is there stated. On the termination of the period for which these provisions prevail there will come into operation the provisions of Clause 11 and the other Clauses in the first part of the Bill.

Mr. JONES: I am sorry I had forgotten Clause 295. It is difficult to remember all these things.

TENTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to Governor of Burma.)

7.44 p.m.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I beg to move in page 315, line 11, to leave out, "out of the revenues of Burma."
This and the following Amendments are purely consequential and apply to Burma other concessions which were accepted by the Government in regard to Customs privileges, and they are in accordance with other Amendments that have been agreed to.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: In the case of the Governor-General the amount of his salary is fixed by one of the Schedules, but in the case of the Governor of Burma it does not appear to be the case. Is that because it has been decided or is there some other reason?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that arises on this Amendment. I think it had better be put on the question that the Schedule stand part.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 315, line 12, at the end, insert:
4. There shall be granted to and in respect of the Governor such customs privileges as may be specified by Order-in-Council.

In line 18, leave out "receive."

In line 20, after "allowances" insert "and privileges."[Mr. Davidson.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Tenth Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. DAVIDSON: I may as well reply right away to the question raised. The provision for the salary and allowances of the Governor of Burma is to be made by Order-in-Council.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I thought the hon. Gentleman was moving Schedule 10 and perhaps putting the other Amendments on Schedule 11, but I find he has moved not only the Amendments in his own name but also those in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet). I did not appreciate that, but now it is too late.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I am sorry; that was the last thing in the world that I wanted to do. Although they appear in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet), they were really the same Amendments as he moved earlier, which were accepted, and they really all fall together.

ELEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Areas in Burma to which Special Provisions apply.)

7.48 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 315, line 32, to leave out "before the passing of this Act," and to insert:
made before the commencement of Part XIV of this Act.

This Amendment is purely drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 315, line 35, after "Burma," to insert:
as amended by any subsequent notification made before the commencement of Part XIV of this Act.
This Amendment is also drafting. There have been several Amendments to the original notification of 1922. This process might possibly recur before separation takes place. It is to make provision for that that we are moving this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page line 8, at the end, to insert:
9. The Salween district.
When the Joint Select Committee discussed this area, they asked us to look into the question of this particular district, and, after making inquiries, we thought that the Salween District of Burma should be moved to Part I, which is totally excluded. This corresponds more closely to the description of a totally excluded area than a partially excluded one. We have had this advice, and I think it would be more suitable if, following upon the advice given us, and upon the result of our investigation, the Salween District were put in the first part of this Schedule rather than the second.

7.50 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I have had some private correspondence with the India Office on the subject of statistics I sent to them and I would ask the Under-Secretary whether, as a matter of fact, the Salween District, as now stated, includes the whole of the tract which really belongs to the Karen Hills and the people who live there. I am given to understand, although I have not a big enough map of Burma to see, that there are certain tracts in Toungoo which would not be excluded as a whole, but which really fall within the same category as the Salween District itself. I would ask
the Under-Secretary whether in the delimitation of boundaries or by some other reference, provision could be made so that the whole hill tracts falling within the same category should be brought within the excluded area. I would merely put that question in the hope that he will be able to give some assurance.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I remember the correspondence I had on the subject of some townships, neighbouring on the Salween District. Those particular townships had actually remained outside the Salween District. I am still investigating this matter with the Government of Burma, and we have not been able to come to any definite decision yet whether they can be made a partially excluded area. They are still outside this particular Salween District, and when I am in a position to give the hon. Member a reply I will do so and inform him of what decision we can come to on this subject.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I am much obliged.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move in page 316, to leave out line 18.

This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

TWELFTH SCHEDULE.—(Composition of the Burma Legislature.)

7.55 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I beg to move in page 317, line 3, to leave out "ninety-one" and to insert "eighty-six."
This Amendment has been drafted to provide five seats for the women of Burma in the House of Representatives, and, in order to make room for these five women, to deduct five from the number of non-communal seats. At present it is not proposed to give women any reserved seats. I can anticipate the objection which the Under-Secretary will make, because it was foreshadowed in the report of the Joint Select Committee, who explained that they had originally intended, as proposed in a White Paper, to reserve three seats for women, but when the Burmese delegates attended the Joint Select Committee the one woman repre-
sentative repudiated reservation of seats, and the Joint Select Committee therefore took away those seats, and proposed to give none to women. I want to point out that the women of India also repudiated reservation of seats like the Burmese women. They did it on the principle that what they wanted was complete equality between the sexes without any privileges. In order to do that the Indian women asked for adult franchise.
The Burmese women asked for a franchise for the wives of men voters calculating that they would get a perfectly adequate franchise, if not complete equality, and would be able to do without reservation of seats. In the case of India, provision was made for reservation of seats for women as some compensation, but in the case of Burma they took away the reserved seats but they did not give a real equality of voting rights or even the right of wives to vote on their husbands' qualification, for which the Burmese representative had specifically asked. I suggest that that was not fair. The two propositions hang together, and I think it was taking an unfair advantage of the Burmese women to say, "You do not want reserved seats. We are glad to have them to spare," and then to refuse to give them the wives' votes they had asked for. See the position that puts the Burmese women in. They will be in a worse position than the women of India. It is true that owing to the wider property rights and their higher degree of literacy they will have a higher percentage of electorate than the Indian women. In the case of Burma it is one woman's vote to over three and a half men's votes, and in India it is one to five, but that does not make up for having no security for seats in the House of Representatives.
Again, I may be told that the Burmese women are well able to look after themselves and are good business women and do not suffer from such evils as child marriage which break down Indian women. I am prepared to believe that the Burmese woman is a competent individual, but the position seems to be that she is equal to three and a half men because the percentage of voting strength cannot be expected to give her equality of rights and representation when she has only one vote to three and a half men's votes, unless you suppose that that represents her superiority over men.
Therefore, I do ask the Under-Secretary whether he cannot, on behalf of the Government, either accept the Amendment down in my name and that of my hon. Friend, or tell us that he will accept, when it is reached, a corresponding Amendment which I have put down on a franchise schedule dealing with Burma to enfranchise the wives of men voters. Even if he would enfranchise a substantial proportion, I should be prepared to withdraw this Amendment, recognising that the Burmese women prefer an adequate franchise to reservation of seats. I suggest that the Government should give one or the other, because it is rather hard that the Burmese women, who, confessedly, in many respects are more advanced in respect of education and independence of spirit than the Indian women, should be put in an inferior position to the Indian women and not in a position of equality. If they are so competent, why only give them so small a percentage of voting strength? If they are not so competent, then I submit that they do need the security which a reservation of seats will give them.
I have noticed that the suggestion of the Joint Select Committee was to make the number of the House of Representatives 133. When they dropped the idea of reservation of seats for women they cut the number down to 130. I have already dealt with the question of the size of the Legislature, and I could only table this Amendment by suggesting that women's seats could be deducted from the general non-communal seats. It is perfectly open to the Government to change the number again on the Report stage and make it 133, and they would then make room for women's seats without taking anything away from the general non-communal seats that have been promised. Three is little, but it is better than nothing. I do not attach importance to the exact form of this Amendment, but we do want to secure more for the women of Burma than the Bill promises them.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Lady is always very persuasive in these matters of women's franchise and women's seats. I should like to defer any detailed consideration of the question of franchise until later, because, as she says, the
Amendment in question does not arise on this particular Schedule. I think that I should perhaps be corresponding to Order more if I followed that course. I do not wish to deny to her that the question of the franchise accorded to Burmese women has a relation to the number of seats. The Joint Select Committee had a unique experience in considering the case of the women of Burma. We had the advantage of there attending before us a capable delegate representing the Burmese women, and she stated emphatically that the women of Burma did not wish any special seats to be reserved to them. She said that she had had an opportunity of consultation with her fellow women in Burma, and, in view of this very decided opinion, I do not think that it would be wise to go against the expression of opinion that has been made by a competent representative of the Burmese women. The hon. Lady moved that five non-communal seats should be reserved for women. I do not think that the Government can at once increase the allocation which they had originally proposed, which was three seats. We are now asked to give five seats. We are asked to increase the number, and, in view of the statement I have made, we could not accept the Amendment.
We might have felt led to reconsider the matter if we had received representations from Burma, but we have received no representations which differ from the opinion given to us. We find that an additional argument for reinforcing our view that we should not have special seats reserved for women. The women of Burma have a special position. The hon. Lady has given statistics as to the corresponding value of a Burmese woman and a Burmese man. I would not attempt to vie with her, but there is no doubt that Burmese women do mix in the life of the community to a greater extent than in India. We all of us, whether we are considering India or Burma, take an opportunity not to introduce special representation or franchise. When an opportunity therefore arises to let women stand in the ordinary constituencies to find their own place in the political life of the country and when they ask us to allow them to do so, I think that the Government would be very wrong to go against the finding of the Joint Select Committee.
The hon. Lady said that if we could help her on franchise she would not attach so much importance to this particular Amendment. I am rather precluded from going into details on franchise and would only remind her that the women voters in Burma have increased to about 700, 000 from a figure of only about 124, 000. That is a very distinct increase in voting power for the women of Burma. I agree that we have not been able to concede the strength of franchise which the women of Burma desire, but we have increased their proportion to men, which is approximately one to 3.5. In view of the position held by the women of Burma, in view of the statement of their representative at the Burmese discussions before the Joint Select Committee, I regret that we are unable to accept the Amendment.

8.7 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I do not propose to press this Amendment to a Division, but I would suggest that the Under-Secretary did not meet my argument. He rather skilfully evaded it. It was hardly fair to take that one representative of the women of Burma, and yet refuse to give her the extended vote she asked for while it was on the ground of that extended vote that she said that the women of Burma did not want reserved seats. The two propositions ought to hang together. What assurance have we that that one woman could speak for the women of Burma? The movement in Burma has not been as vociferous or well organised as the movement in India. I think it is very rash to take it for granted that because one women came over here and assured the Committee that the women of Burma did not want reservation of seats that the seats which the Government had already undertaken to give in the White Paper should be taken away. That particular lady need not stand for any of these seats if she does not want to do so, but is it not likely that there would be women in Burma who would be very glad to stand? I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some further concession when it comes to the franchise, because it is a very poor reason for refusing to give either an adequate vote or reservation of seats in compensation that they are already so advanced. That ought to be a reason for giving them more power, not less.

8.9 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: Before the Government yield to the pressure of the hon. Lady who has just spoken, as they might do on second thoughts, may I say that the hon. Lady earlier in the evening was rather severe in her strictures on myself? I do not need to adopt a similar role, but I do feel that the lady who gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee was a particularly well-qualified woman who was entitled to speak for the women of Burma, and I do not think it is fair to say that the Government ought not to listen to the only Burmese woman to express an opinion and that they ought to listen to the only British woman who has taken part in this Debate.

Miss RATHBONE: They might have listened to everything she said and not only half of it.

Sir H. CROFT: I think that we listen to a great deal that the hon. Lady says. We know how enthusiastic she is on this subject. The Committee ought to realise what a danger there is of being carried away by emotion with regard to all these questions. The hon. Lady took a great part in winning the vote for women in this country, and we have all now accepted the situation that we are all equal in our opportunities for entering this House, but after all everybody must realise that the women in the East have taken a very much less part in all sorts of public and social life than women in the old world. In view of the fact that a substantial representation is being given to them it is unwise to give any impression to the women of Burma that they are not, being adequately represented. I suggest that all through these Debates we have been too much inclined to compare the position in the Provinces of India and in Burma with the position at which we have arrived after 500, 600, 700 years of political education in this country. I therefore hope that the Government will not be in any way influenced by what the hon. Lady said either in this or any future discussions, because we have in the matter of female suffrage taken a step forward with regard to this constitution at a far greater rate than has been taken anywhere in the old world.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I should not have risen but for the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. I trust that the Government will relax and will yield to the pressure of the hon. Lady. The case that she made out has still to be answered. The Under-Secretary is wrong if he takes the one representative, whom I had the pleasure of seeing sitting at the Burma Round Table Conference, as fully representing in this matter the view of all the women in Burma. The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) is correct when she says that if he takes the Burma representative's view on this matter he should equally take her view on all matters. That is so logical that the Under-Secretary will be obliged to answer her case in that respect. Certainly the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot be correct if he argues that the women of Burma are more ignorant than the men of Burma. I think that it is admitted by most persons who have studied this matter that the women of Burma are looked on as being perhaps the most intelligent women we have in the East, and that they should have the opportunity of exercising their intelligence by having an increase in the franchise extended to them. I adduce from the remarks of the Under-Secretary that some concession is likely to be made.

Mr. BUTLER: I think that it would be out of order for me to start discussing in detail the proposed new franchise or to have any deductions made by hon. Members.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I thought that in making reference to it he was trying to bring pressure to bear upon the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment, in the hope that something would happen which was favourable to her point of view. I will not continue that argument, because it would be out of order, but I trust that the Under-Secretary will endeavour to meet the logic of the case. He should not regard the representative at the Round Table Conference as fully representing the whole of the women's demands in this matter, and if he does he should meet in all respects all the claims put by her on behalf of the women. I do not want to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth into the franchise issue in this country. I supported the
cause of women's suffrage. Many things which happened at the time were deplorable. Most of the arguments advanced at the time were comparable to the arguments advanced by the hon. and gallant Member just now, that women do not possess as much intelligence as men or that if they do they are not able to exercise it.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is doing what he said he was not going to do. He is certainly getting beyond the bounds of this discussion.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am endeavouring to follow the hon. and gallant Member in his remarks.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member does that there may be no end to where he goes, and he is certainly getting beyond the bounds of order.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was only following the hon. and gallant Member in his arguments.

The CHAIRMAN: But it is not in order to do so.

Sir H. CROFT: May I intervene to say to the hon. Member that I never used the phrase which he attributed to me?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Then I am afraid I was arguing on an assumption rather than on a definite statement. I hope the Under-Secretary will again reply to what the hon. Lady had to say.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. NOEL LINDSAY: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) I desire to say a word on this Amendment, to which his name is attached. The argument so far has proceeded solely on the grounds put forward by the hon. Lady representing the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), who desires to reduce the number of general seats in order to confer additional seats upon the representatives of her sex. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster desires also to reduce the number of general seats, but for a different purpose, as appears from another Amendment in his name. He desires to reduce the number of general seats in order to increase the European representation. Our roads go a certain distance together, only we desire to reduce the number of general
seats from 91 to 86 to make use of them for European representation and she desires to transfer them to the ladies.
I am given to understand that the European interests in Burma are profoundly dissatisfied at the amount of representation which is being given to them. At present there are seven European representatives in a House of 103, not counting the official bloc of 16 seats, most of which are occupied by Europeans. If strict proportional representation were adopted, in a House of 133 the European representation would be not three, as provided for by the Schedule, but something like 11. The Amendment does not ask for as much as that, but only for representation for eight, which I am sure the Under-Secretary will agree is a modest request. The principle which was adopted generally and which was recommended by the Joint Select Committee was that there should not be a lesser proportion of European representation than exists at present, and even if this Amendment were carried, with the other in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, and European representation were increased to eight, there would still be, in proportion, a lower representation of European interests in the new House than there is in the present House. The Under-Secretary knows very well that in Burma the European interest is greater probably than in any part of India, with the possible exception of Bengal.
In Bengal the European representation amounts to 10 per cent. of the lower House, which is slightly greater than we ask here. The Burma Chamber of Commerce feel that this is a very modest request and ought to be granted. They do not feel that the Burman population has yet reached a standard of political development which would justify a reduction in the European seats, particularly as Burma is not in the same position as a Province. In the case of the Provinces there is the safeguard of the existence of the Central Government, but Burma is to stand by itself, and there will be no Central Government to cover up mistakes which may be made. In Burma, as elsewhere, there are the reserved powers, but no one wants to call them into operation unless that is essential. We think that if the European representation in Burma can be increased
there will be fewer occasions for resorting to the reserved powers, and that a greater European representation will enhance the possibilities of the success of this great constitutional experiment. It is sometimes said that the Continent of India is ripe for this experiment. Of Burma that is perhaps less true. It is for these reasons that the European interests in Burma desire this Amendment to be pressed, and ask for a greater share of representation in the Burma House of Representatives.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: In the original Amendment no reference was made to this subject and that is why I did not touch upon it earlier. I will give an answer to my hon. Friend; but before doing so perhaps I had better refer to the points raised by the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman opposite. I have little to add to my original statement with regard to the number of seats for women, because we are not proposing to reserve them, and regard the representative of Burma as competent to express the views of Burmese women. We have received no representation at all from Burma on this subject differing from her views. The hon. Lady representing the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), with clever dialectical skill, tied up this question with that of the franchise. I do not want to mislead the Committee, but I do not think, speaking from memory, that these matters are tied up together as conditions in the submission of the hon. lady from Burma who attended our deliberations to speak on behalf of Burmese women. She definitely asked for an increased franchise and for no seats to be reserved. I do not think she tied the two questions together. We are dealing with the first of her requests that there should be no seats reserved. When the time comes I shall try to deal with the second request. With regard to representations from Burma, we have received none from the women.
I agree that the Europeans in Burma are not entirely satisfied with the allocation of seats to them in the Chamber. We have, however, exhaustively reviewed this matter; we did so on the Joint Select Committee, as well as previous to the deliberations of that body and since it finished its labours. Let me describe the position of the European community in Burma at the present
moment. The European community numbers about 11,650, a comparatively small proportion of the population. I agree with the hon. Member, however, that they have contributed a great deal, both in capital and in their influence, to the development of Burma, which, as I have previously described to the Committee, is developing its great natural products of rice, tea and oil largely with the assistance of European capital and European initiative. I do not deny for a moment the importance of their stake in the country or of their importance to Burma's future.
Leaving aside the representation which the European community will receive in special interest constituencies, the number of Europeans as such, as representing the community, will be increased, in our proposal, from one representative to three. That is a substantial increase. On the basis of their numerical proportion and their correspondence with other communities it was thought that that rise in the number of their representation was just. The Europeans will have a total of nine seats. In answering the hon. Member, I think it desirable to go into this point in some little detail. There will be three seats for the European community as such—that is, as a community—five for the Burman Chamber of Commerce, which will represent those very interests to which the hon. Member made such striking reference, and one for the Rangoon Trades Association. Therefore, in the Burma Legislature there will be a total of nine seats representing the European point of view, some through the medium of their special interests, upon which the hon. Member has very largely based his case, and some because of the increase from one to three representatives of the European community.
The hon. Member referred to the Constitution of Burma and to the contrast between Burma and the Indian Provinces. He mentioned Bengal in particular. In considering the detailed question of representation in the eleven Provinces of India and in the country of Burma, there have throughout been special considerations which have applied to the Europeans in Bengal, who are in a Province in which there are two almost equal communities and who—without developing
the point further—occupy a very particular position in the face of those two communities. These considerations, which are exceptional in the case of Bengal, have never been applied to any other Indian Province and have not been applied, to some extent, in the country of Burma. We have always considered that there is no direct relationship, therefore, between the argument of Bengal, which the hon. Member has used, and the argument of Burma, although I am doing my best to make reference to it owing to the fact that the hon. Member raised it.
The hon. Member proceeded to develop his argument that the Burma Constitution was such that matters would be more uncertain in the future if there were no central government to intervene in time of necessity; but in Burma there are exactly the same provisions for the time of trouble as there are in an Indian Province, the Governor's special powers. Let me remind the hon. Member that the Upper House in Burma is constituted in a particular way which will reassure anybody who believes in political stability. The constitution of the Upper House has appealed to the European community in Burma. I regret that the Government have been unable to raise the number of seats for Europeans above the figure of nine. Recently it was decided to allot two extra seats, and to raise by two the size of the Burman Legislature, after we had subtracted the women's seats which Dr. Ma Saw Sa said she did not want. One of those seats had been allotted to the European interests and one to the Chettiars. This shows that, in the allocation of seats, we have paid particular attention to the Europeans. In the last month or two we have done our best to meet their desires, and aye paid attention to what they have asked. On the other hand, we have been unable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, which goes against all the local advice that we have been offered, and which might console the European community, but, by alienating the opinion of Burma would do them more harm than the few extra seats would do them good.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Lady wish to press her Amendment?

Miss RATHBONE: Yes, Sir.

Amendment negatived.

8.31 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 317, line 9, to leave out "Anglo-Indians," and to insert "Anglo-Burmans."
This is one of a number of Amendments designed to comply with the request of the Anglo-Indian community in Burma that they should be known in future as Anglo-Burmans. It is a request to which the Government are prepared to agree.

8.32 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I was not aware that this request had been made, but I understand from what the Attorney-General has said that the change is being made at the request of those concerned. That means that all the Anglo-Indians, who are quite distinct, of course, from Anglo-Burmans, have asked specially that they may be called Anglo-Burmans in future. In that case, there is no objection, if that be the fact. I would, however, like to know whether the persons who made the request are representative of the Anglo-Indians in Burma, and whether they can bind the whole community in this matter; otherwise, there might be numbers of Anglo-Indians in Burma, either those who live there or those who come there in the course of business or the transfer of appointments, who have not been party to this arrangement, and do not like the obliteration of the distinctive term which has been applied to them. I have raised this point in order to clear up all doubts. The matter occurs in other Amendments later on, but anything that is to be said on the subject ought to be disposed of now.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can only tell my hon. Friend that from the resources which are at our disposal the Government have come to the conclusion that those who have claimed to represent the Anglo-Indians, as desiring the use of this phrase, do represent them. I am not going to say for a moment that they represent 100 per cent. of Anglo-Indians. It is inevitable that some people should disagree with the views expressed by those who represent them. We are satisfied that, broadly speaking, the community is represented by those to whose views the Government believe that they are giving effect in this Amendment.

Sir H. CROFT: Is there any association of Anglo-Indians in Burma who may have agreed to this proposal?

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that it would not be more convenient to deal with this matter when we reach the Amendment in which Anglo-Indians are defined.

Sir H. CROFT: Certainly, if that be in order.

Amendment agreed to.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 317, line 13, to leave out "nine," and to insert "eleven."
This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which was made to Clause 313 (2) by which the House of Representatives was increased by two members, and will consist now of 132 members instead of 130. I should like to correct a previous impression that I gave to the Committee. The extra seat for European interests was given to the Burma Chamber of Commerce, and not to the Rangoon Trades Association.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I cannot agree that this Amendment is necessarily consequential. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are now two extra seats available, but I do not see that it is necessarily consequential that those two seats should go to those to whom they are allotted. Why should they be reserved for commerce and industry? Why is the number of seats for commerce and industry to be raised from nine to eleven? Look at the number of Labour seats. Only two seats for the whole of Burma are held by representatives of Labour.

Mr. BUTLER: On a pure point of Order, I should like to say that this merely increases the seats from nine to 11 consequentially upon the taking of the previous decision. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman can raise here the question of how they are filled. I do not want to avoid any discussion on the matter, but on the strict point of Order I am not sure that we can do more here than just raise the number.

The CHAIRMAN: On that point of Order, I am not quite sure that I have followed the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment is in line 13 on page 317, where paragraph (f) says:
nine seats shall be filled by representatives of Commerce and Industry.
The Amendment would increase the representatives of commerce and industry from nine to 11.

Mr. BUTLER: Yes.

Mr. JONES: I thought I was correct, and therefore it is not at all consequential upon the increased number of seats. I am not examining the question whether the Government should have accepted the view that the two seats for women were not required; that is another matter entirely; but there are two seats that are now available. The Government have already provided nine seats for commerce and industry, and that is not all by any means. If hon. Members will look at the list and see how the seats are allotted, they will find that quite a number of seats are held by people whose interests will be very largely the same as those of commerce and industry. For instance, the three seats for Europeans will be mainly commercial, and these, with the other nine seats for commerce and industry, will make 12. Now still another two are to be given. Really the Government must have some sense of proportion in this matter. I submit with all respect that commerce and industry and European interests are amply looked after in the provision already made in the Schedule. It cannot be argued by any stretch of the imagination, however, that Labour interests are amply safeguarded by the provision of two seats—

Mr. BUTLER: Four seats.

Mr. JONES: Yes, four—two for Indian Labour and two for non-Indian Labour. But four is surely a very poor proportion compared with the 11 which are now proposed for commerce and industry. I wish the Government would take a little longer view of this problem. On the short view they are perhaps entitled—I do not know—to say that it might be difficult to find more than four people who could be deemed to represent labour. But that is a short view. In a few years from now opinion may rapidly change. Education among these poople may develop speedily; organisation may develop also; and the case, therefore, for increased representation of Labour as against the interests of the commercial classes may be much stronger 10, 15 or 20 years hence than it is to-day. There-
fore, the Government must not take it for granted that, because there are two more seats, those seats should automatically go to commerce and industry. I want to know what case there is for it. The Under-Secretary must justify it on grounds of reason, and not merely on the ground of arithmetic.

8.40 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I should like to say a word with regard to the interesting speech of the hon. Gentleman, who always appears to think that Labour is a distinct depressed class which has nothing to do with the general community. Taking the 91 general seats in Burma, do not they represent those millions of the population who are going to be enfranchised, and does not the hon. Gentleman think that possibly the masses in Burma may be included among the working classes? If that be so, it seems extraordinary to advance the claim for a larger number of distinct Labour representatives. Nobody would call hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches Labour except by way of distinction. They are the representatives of the British people. Why set up these absurd class distinctions in Burma? Four representatives are to be put there specially, in addition to the overwhelming working masses of Burma, who will of course control the situation, as they do in this country. It is always very difficult for hon. Gentlemen to understand that I am sent here by an overwhelming majority of the working-class in my constituency.
The idea of the Government, as far as I understand it, is that, as is well known, there is very little organised labour at all in Burma; it is almost negligible; but His Majesty's Government, in their generosity of heart, naturally want to give something to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends who have supported them in the Lobby day after day and night after night. Counting the Members coming through the Lobbies, one cannot tell whether they are Conservatives or Socialists; it is true Nationalism. One must realise that they have had something thrown to them. My hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), who knows Burma better than any other Member of the House, will bear me out when I say that organised Labour in Burma is so small that it is almost quixotic that it should
have any representation at all, but perhaps it is good that it should be given, to keep the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) sweeter.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), speaking on behalf of the Socialist party, said he was shocked that 11 seats should be given to Europeans in Burma; but where would Burma be to-day but for British guidance? Where would Burma be as an independent country but for British defence? What do the people of Burma have to contribute towards their defence against the perils which every nation has to face? Are they not able to work out their destiny free from the anxieties that other countries have to face? What other eastern country has made such great progress as Burma has made since the British flag has flown in that country?
It is a very great country, and it has a very great trade. I think it may be said that it is almost entirely through British India and British interests that Burma has been brought into touch, through her seaborne commerce, with the countries of the world. Her great export trade has been developed owing to the fact that Britain, and British India, also taught by Britain, went to Burma and led the way so that she could sell her vast products, without which she could not exist, to the rest of the world. Therefore, when members of the Socialist party say how wrong it is that you should have 11 European representatives—they need not even be British—in this chamber out of 133, I really say, could you haul down the flag much more quickly than that? I think that the time has come when the British people are beginning to realise how ready we are to eliminate British representation, guidance and rule in these territories of the Empire. When you look at what the British Empire was at the conclusion of the War, as far as British guidance and control were concerned, and look at it to-day, or what it will be after this Bill, in addition to Ceylon and Irak, and what you have attempted in Egypt, the British people will wonder why they did not sit up and take notice of what was happening on these empty benches at Westminster at a time when we were so little concerned for the fortunes of British interests which have done so much to
maintain and to build up the prosperity of Burma.

8.47 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I do not want to repeat the arguments which my hon. and gallant Friend has just put forward, but there are other points which certainly deserve mention in this matter of European seats. The first thing to remember is that all this time there have been a number of nominated official members who are naturally ready and willing to support all those European claims and considerations which they regard as just. The disappearance of these nominated members from the new Legislature undoubtedly requires that European interests should be adequately represented. European interests in Burma are so very important now that the whole country has been opened up by the Bombay-Burma Corporation, which began its enterprises in the times of the Burmese Kings—they incurred great risks at that time in their commercial enterprise—and certainly it is only fair that the European interests in Burma should be adequately represented. As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, the total representation on the Council is really very small, so far as commerce is concerned Burmese people themselves have taken comparatively little part in it, and the greater part of the commerce of Burma has been in Indian hands. Indian commerce attained its footing there when the British took over possession of Bombay. There is, moreover, a large number of Chinese in Burma who have not much representation, but they also represent commerce. For all these reasons, I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that these objections to the number of seats given to Europeans will not bear scrutiny or examination, and that they are perfectly just and reasonable in the circumstances of their history and the circumstances which prevail now, and, as far as one can see, in the circumstances which will prevail after this new constitution comes into operation.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. FLEMING: I should like to point out the attitude of Lancashire on this matter. We are delighted that there has been a small increase in the representation of Europeans in this new constitution for Burma, but, slight as it is, we in the North cannot forget that we have
great commercial interests in that country which we hope not only to maintain in the low condition to which they have dropped, not only in Burma but in India, but to increase them, if possible. When we examine the question we come to the conclusion that the best way of looking after Lancashire interests is to have as strong a European representation in the constitution as possible. For that reason, as well as for the reasons so ably put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) and the distinguished Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), I have great pleasure in raising my voice in opposition to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) as regards the increase in European representation from nine to 11.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The case put forward by hon. Members who have touched upon European representation has, I think, been met to the best of my ability by the arguments I have used, and I should like to address myself to the points raised at the start of the discussion by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), when he asked why, when we were raising the number of Chamber seats, we attach these seats to representatives of commerce and industry. We have given the question of labour representation most exhaustive consideration. My right hon. Friend and I, ever since we have been involved in these matters, have been in communication with the Government of Burma, and I myself have taken a personal interest in the matter in view of the fact that I had the privilege of visiting India on the Franchise Committee and there raised, with the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) and others, the number of seats for Indian labour by a very appreciable amount both in the Provincial Lower Houses and in the Central Assembly. I therefore hoped that it would be possible to raise the number of seats in Burma, and we have included a provision in the Schedule for four extra seats. The difficulties connected with labour in Burma are greater than they are in India. For the most part labour is very difficult to tie down or to attach
to one particular place. It is migratory and shifting in nature. If the hon. Member will refer to the Memorandum submitted by the Government to the Joint Select Committee he will see this phrase:
Much of the labour which is employed is of a shifting type. The greater part of it consists of Indians ordinarily resident in the country. This is the case in Rangoon where there is a population of 400,415 of whom 212, 929 are resident, and about 30,000 Chinese.
The Indians probably supply most of the industrial labour also in the up-country towns of lower Burma, with the exception, when you go on to the oilfields, that this Burman labour is largely seasonal and casual. That is why we have great difficulty in attempting to find Labour constituencies in which we can have a satisfactory system of Labour seats. We thought that we had a solution by attaching the Labour seats to vocations. There are practically no trade unionists in Burma. We are informed that there is only one which has a membership of not more than 56. I do not wish to exaggerate, but that is the information which we had at the time of the sittings of the Joint Select Committee. The largest body who made application to us for labour seats were a society of omnibus owners who thought that they might come under the category of labour. We were able to find tram, transport, and taxi drivers and omnibus owners who could form a constituency representing a section of labour but, unfortunately, we could not regard it as pure labour and we had to take the opportunity of creating a labour seat and to restrict ourselves to certain definite areas, of which the oilfields and the portion of Rangoon itself are the most suitable. Labour representation is divided between Indian labour and Burmese labour. That is done because, I regret to say, there is violent antagonism between labour gangs of Burmans and Indian labour, and it is necessary to separate them when forming labour constituencies. In order to make the deal for labour a little fairer we have in the case of Burma a separate provision from that in the case of India. The Joint Select Committee in their report say that four labour constituencies may appear short measure, but certain weightage will be given to labour in that labour electors in labour constituencies
will be able to exercise their votes also in the general constituencies. So much for the actual representation of labour as such.
It is when we turn to the general nature of the franchise that we find that in Burma there is a greater proportion of male electors to the population than in any province in India. When the franchise provisions, which were at that time greater than in any province in India were made, and in regard to which my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) played so honourable a part, bachelors and widowers were, unfortunately, omitted. We have remedied that defect, with the result that a very large proportion of the male population in Burma will in future have the vote. I have already announced to the Committee the number of women who will be receiving the vote. The result, roughly, is that in urban areas in Burma nearly every permanently situated male citizen will be in possession of the vote, which means a greater degree of relative franchise than in some of the similar urban areas on the continent of India. That being the case and it having arisen out of a previous decision taken with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities, Burma labour interests as such, providing that they are permanently domiciled in the country, will have a definite opportunity of gaining representation in perhaps some of the general constituencies as well. In view of these facts I hope the hon. Member will see that we have given the closest consideration to the claims of labour. There are few subjects in which I have taken more interest. I should have liked to have seen more seats reserved for labour, but in view of the great difficulty of organising those seats and the difficulty of having a satisfactory election, we have been obliged to restrict ourselves to four.

Mr. PALING: I understood the Under-Secretary to say that in the urban districts most of the adult males will have the franchise. May I take it that in so far as the labour constituencies are concerned, that means that they will vote in the labour constituencies as such and also because they live in the urban districts, and that in addition to being able to vote for the four labour seats most of them will be able to vote in the general constituencies?

Mr. BUTLER: Suppose the labour constituencies are situated one on each side, say, of the Rangoon river and the other two in the oilfields, in those particular districts the voters in the labour constituencies will be entitled to exercise their votes in the general constituencies.

Sir H. CROFT: I would point out that this is a principle against which the Socialist party have always most strenuously fought. The Committee ought to realise that they are now demanding the plural vote for Burma. A thing that they would, not allow in this country is all right for Burma.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made.

9 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 317, line 41, to leave out paragraph 6, and to insert:
6. The provisions of the Schedule (Provisions as to Franchise in Burma) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the election of persons to hold the seats in the House of Representatives mentioned in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of paragraph three of this Schedule.
This Amendment is merely drafting. It is consequential on the decision to put the franchise provisions in a separate Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 318, line 14, to leave out "four," and to insert:
one shall be filled by a representative of the Nattukottai Chettiars' Association, five.
This Amendment is consequential on the decision to give an additional seat to the Chettiars' Association.

HON. MEMBERS: What is a Chettiar?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: A "Chettiar" is a form of banker.

Sir H. CROFT: Not a money-lender?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Bankers lend money. The money-lenders in this country have an association. The Amendment is consequential on the decision to give a seat to the Chettiars' Association and one additional seat to the Burma Chamber of Commerce.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 318, line 36, to leave out from "a" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert:
Karen, an Indian, an Anglo-Burman, or a European, no person shall be eligible to fill the vacancy who is not, as the case may be, a Karen, an Indian, an Anglo-Burman, or a European.
This also is a drafting Amendment. Hon. Members will see on page 318, line 36, of the Bill that in the Schedule there appear the words:
A member of the Karen, Indian, Anglo-Indian, or European community.
The Amendment is to get rid of that phrase and to insert the words in the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 318, line 43, after "income-tax," insert "in Burma."

In line 5, after "service," insert "in Burma."

In line 6, leave out "in Burma."[The Solicitor-General.]

9.4 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg to move, in page 319, to leave out lines 23 to 29, and to insert:
'a European' means a person whose father or any of whose other male progenitors in the male line is of European race and who is not a native of India as defined in section six of the Government of India Act, 1870;
'an Anglo-Burman means a person whose father or any of whose male progenitors in the male line is of European race, but who is a native of India as defined in the said section six. 
This is a subject similar to that which we discussed previously in regard to India. I do not want to delay the Committee by repeating the arguments then used. I presume that we may take it that the promise of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL that the matter would receive consideration as regards India will also apply to Burma, as it is exactly the same point. The only question which I desire to put in asking the Government to accept the Amendment, is whether the term "Anglo-Burman" may cause great anxiety in Burma. Have the Government received any authoritative message from Burma expressing the opinion of the Anglo-Indians as a whole on this question? Pride of race is still strong. As in the past so in the future we may have many
Anglo-Indians going over the border and carrying out work in Burma. If the solicitor-general says that the Anglo-Indian community in Burma agree I shall not press the Amendment but if not then I would ask him to consider the insertion of some words to show that this does not in any way exclude Anglo-Indians in Burma from these privileges.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I put the question I must say that I seem to remember that in the case of the provision in the India part of the Bill in the definition of "Europeans" the word "or" was altered into the word "and."

9.6 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: May I say that the Government prefer the Amendment in the form in which it is on the Order Paper. It is quite true that a similar Amendment was moved on the Schedule to the India Bill, and I was responsible for suggesting that in the definition of "European" the word "or" should be "and." In making that suggestion I was in fact wrong. These words have been considered by the European communities in both countries, and they desire the words as they appear on the Order Paper. We are, therefore, prepared to accept the Amendment in its present form and will put right the definition in the India part of the Bill on Report. The matter is not an easy one. I am informed that my right hon. Friend has been in communication with two bodies, the Anglo-Indian or the Anglo-Burman Association and the Anglo-Indian or Anglo-Burman League, the two bodies which are representative of the opinion of the Anglo-Indian communities, and they both desire this change. The Anglo-Indian League was at first inclined to doubt it, but having considered the matter further they think it desirable that this provision should be inserted. The definition is on all fours with the definition of Anglo-Indians and there is no question of any one being left out of the definition who should be included.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made.

9.10 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 320, line 3, to leave out "British India or in any State in."
I will deal with this group of Amendments together. This is the definition of Indians for the purposes of Indian representation in Burma. The first is merely drafting, but the Second Amendment is perhaps a little more involved. We propose to leave out the words "has or had up to" and instead insert the words "had at." That makes the provision refer to the date of the birth. It would be absurd because a man's father has changed his domicile that the status of the son, as far as this matter is concerned, should be affected. The next two Amendments are purely drafting while the last merely fills up a gap in the definition.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 320, line 5, leave out "has or had up to," and insert "had at."

In line 7, at end, insert "and."

In line 10, leave out "are," and insert "is"

In line 13, at the end, insert:
(2) In determining any question as to whether a person was born in or had, at any past date, a domicile in India, regard shall be had to the boundaries of India at the date when the question falls to be determined and not to the date of the birth of that person or, as the case may be, the said past date."—[The solicitor-general.]

9.15 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg to move, in page 320, line 13, at the end, to insert:
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, any reference in section six of the Government of India Act, 1870, to India shall be construed as a reference to India and Burma.
I do not think that this Amendment needs any explanation, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes, we accept it.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: We cannot agree to pass this Amendment without some explanation of what Section 6 of the Government of India Act of 1870 implies.

9.16 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This Amendment is really consequential on the provisions which have been made with regard to definition. Section 6 defines a statutory native of India. Broadly speaking, it says that statutory natives
of India include those who are normally resident in India, although they may have European descent. As Burma is now separated from India it is necessary that the definition should include Burma as well as India.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 320, line 15, to leave out "Schedule," and to insert "Act."
This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the decision to insert franchise provisions in a new Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 320, line 35, to leave out, "in his discretion," and to insert "exercising his individual judgment."
The words are really a survival, a remanet, from the original draft of this provision before the scheme had been adopted of distinguishing the words "individual judgment," and "in his discretion," according to whether the matter was a ministerial matter or within a reserved department.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 320, line 37, after "Schedule," to insert:
and the provisions of the Schedule (Provisions as to Franchise in Burma).
This Amendment is consequential on the decision to incorporate the provisions of the franchise in a new Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Twelfth Schedule to the Bill."

9.20 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: There are two points I wish to raise before the Committee ends this very short visit to Burma. The first point is with regard to the complete elimination, as I understand it, of all nominated seats in the House of Representatives that is to be set up. My hon. Friends and I were most anxious to have an opportunity of moving an Amendment which provided that there be 20 nominated members at the inception of this legislative body. The Government apparently are not anxious for such a provision or they would have put it into the Bill. However, I ask them whether
they would not consider between now and Report the wisdom of such a provision, assuming that they want the new form of government in Burma to be a success. For a limited period of years could they not provide for some trained advisers in this new House of Representatives Can it be denied that in any of these Eastern constitutions which we have attempted the little success which has been attained has been very largely due to the fact that the well-affected legislators have been able to turn to their elder brothers, their British colleagues, and to ask them how they can get over this or that difficulty according to the experience of those Westerners who were helping them and were in their midst?
I can understand what the Government have done with regard to Burma, because they have been overwhelmed by the great pressure of the Indian problem, and it has been very tempting to them to say, "Let us bring Burma in along the lines of the same sort of scheme. Burma having been a Province of the Indian Empire, perhaps the Burmese would not like to have anything different from the Provincial Governments we are setting up in India." That may have seemed expedient, but I do not think it was wise. I urge the Government to consider once again whether they could not provide some skilled guidance in this matter of nominated members of the House of Representatives. Obviously, if they want their scheme to succeed, if they had no other consideration before them than that of not offending this man or that man, they would do something such as I suggest. They would say, "We will have a small body of skilled advisers who cannot by their smallness of numbers upset the decision of that Legislature but will for a period of time lead the Legislature along towards wise decisions." Could not the Government consider on Report putting in some provision of that description, even if for a period of only 10 years, so as to give the scheme a fair trial? I do not like to refer to Ceylon too often, but let me ask, how could the State Council there have proceeded without the guidance of those Europeans who have been there?
My other point is a very minor matter, and is in connection with the Senate.
The Committee will see, on page 318 of the Bill, in paragraph 10, line 33:
… proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote, and 18 shall be filled by persons (who shall not be persons holding office under the Crown) chosen by the Governor in his discretion.
I cannot for the life of me see why none of those 18 should be persons holding office under the Crown. The Governor wants to get the very best men he can, and it does seem to me that to eliminate everyone holding office under the Crown is a mistake. You have not got so many very highly qualified legislators and statesmen in Burma that you can afford to eliminate those who may hold office under the Crown. For that reason I had hoped that those words could have been eliminated, and that there could have been accepted words similar to those in our Amendment. The second is a smaller point, but one which is well worth the consideration of the Government. This is a country covering a vast area and with great difficulties confronting it. They are a scattered population with very slender communications; and with their different religions and different origins the people in Burma will not have an easy task.
This self-government will be self-determination in the case of Burma much more than in the case of the Provinces of India, for Burma is to be left right on its own. Burma will skip all the Crown Colony intermediate period, and become a self-governing Colony at once. The case of Burma will probably be unique. I think she will have greater power than we have given India because of the isolation to which I have referred, and there will be no Governor-General, no remnant of the British Raj, to bring his influence to bear, if it is found that unwise decisions are being taken. For that reason, I feel we are hastening far too much in this question of the constitution of Burma. I do not know whether hon. Members have consulted their constituents as to whether they think it desirable to part with British sway in Burma. I expect they have all brought mandates; but I frankly confess that when I mentioned the matter at a mass meeting of my constituents the other day, they said they had not the smallest conception that we were going to give what amounts to complete self-government to the Burmese.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I rather think this matter has already been decided by the House when the Debate took place as to whether Burma should be separated from India.

Sir H. CROFT: I apologise if I have been somewhat stretching the Rules of Order in the few remarks that I have made. I will merely say, in conclusion, that we are now deciding once and for all in this Schedule what form of government the people of Burma are to have in their two Chambers; and I do not think that the people of this country really desire that we should have given up so much or so speedily all our sway. I believe they would have preferred that we should have continued a real partnership between the British and the Burmese until the Burmese were really able to stand on their own feet.

9.30 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I do not want to repeat the arguments already used, but I should like to support one point made by my hon. and gallant Friend, namely, that the Government should still keep their minds open as to the possibility of nomination being continued in the case of the new Legislature in Burma. Until Mr. Montagu arrived on the scene, and made his famous inquiry, there had been no political feeling at all among the Burmans. There had been no desire expressed for self-government. I found that political extracts from the Burmese newspapers were unobtainable at the Secretariat in Rangoon. When I asked why, it was explained that these newspapers had never contained any political matter at all and that they discussed either matters of amusement or matters of religion. I was quite sure that after Mr. Montagu's visit it would be necessary to take and to examine the papers, and have an abstract made to know what was being said. At that time, the Legislative Council contained only two elected members out of a total of 19, and neither of the elected members was Burmese. One was a representative of the Chamber of Commerce, and the other was a representative of the Trade Association. All the rest were nominated. Only two of them were Burmans, and the rest included a Shan chief, two or three Indians, some nonofficial Europeans, and about nine or ten official men.
Then the question of the reforms came along, and about a year and a half before
I left I got permission to raise this number to 30. I nominated a number of young Burmans. They were political adversaries, but I felt that they ought to be in, and I nominated five or six of them. So it was carried on until the new reforms came in—and they began in 1923, so that Burma has had a much shorter experience of the Montagu reforms than India has had. In addition to that, there is not nearly so much English education in Burma, as may be seen from the fact that quite recently the Burmese Legislature got Agitated about the removal of their President, the Speaker, on the ground that he did not know Burmese, while there were a number of members of the Legislative Council who knew no language but Burmese. Whether that was the real reason or not I do not pretend to say, but, at any rate, they got rid of him on that ground. That was the obstacle to his continuance—because those who wanted to speak could only speak Burmese, and the Speaker, their President, could not understand what was said, which was strange because he had two Burmese wives. I should like to inform my colleague who represents with me the Combined English Universities, in case she does not know, that the only woman who has hitherto served on the Legislative Council does not know a word of English and makes speeches in Burmese, which a great many people cannot understand.
However, my point is that not only has Burma no political experience of that kind but that English education there is much behind English education in India. The Burmese have put up no democratic show themselves in the past. In the old days if a Burmese king was displeased with the attitude of his council or with their proposals or decisions, he put them in the stocks and kept them there until such times as they became more amenable to his wishes. That was the only kind of council that ever existed in Burma before the British regime and that is not so very long ago—only since 1887 or not 50 years ago. Having regard to all those considerations, and also the fact that we are now proposing to put Burma far ahead of India, I think the Government ought to go into this matter of the nominated element again. Had Burma remained a Province of India, as she is now, she would only have received provincial
autonomy. As it is, Burma, having previously been so far behind India, now leaps far ahead of any Indian Province into a position in which she will be able to deal with all those subjects which will be Federal subjects in India when the Federation comes into operation there. I hope that the question of the nominated element in Burma will still be kept under consideration by the Government and that they will not rule out the possibility of its retention, at all events for a period of years, as my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The two hon. Gentlemen who have put this proposition before the Committee have stated their case with moderation and I shall attempt to answer some of their arguments. I think the first request of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) was that there should be 20 nominated members in the Lower House. His second request was that, of the large nominated element, which amounts to half, in the Senate, the Governor should reserve a portion for officials. The Committee will pardon me if I keep to those arguments of the hon. and gallant Member, as they were reinforced by the general argument of my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) and if I do not follow my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities into the picturesque description of Burma long ago with which he delighted the Committee. I am aware of his great experience but I must venture to remind him that some water has flowed under the bridges since that time.

Sir H. CROFT: For the benefit of those hon. Members who have just come into the Committee, may I point out that it is only 12 years ago since the Burma Constitution was brought in and in 12 years you are expecting the Burmese to be able to take a position far ahead of that of India.

Mr. BUTLER: I quite understand the hon. and gallant Member's point but ever since the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, Burma has enjoyed a constitution of the same nature as that in India. Indeed in one respect, namely the transfer of the forests to Burmese control, Burma has had a larger grant of power than some
of the Indian Provinces. I think therefore it may be said with justice that much water has flowed under the bridges since the time when my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities did such excellent service for the Crown in Burma. I sympathise with him in his reflections upon his early memories of administration in Burma but I find it difficult, at this stage of Burmese development, to concede the point that we ought to allow a certain proportion of officials in the legislature. The question of the official bloc has already been considered and debated in relation to the Indian Provinces. We have now the opportunity of considering it in relation to Burma and all the arguments against the official bloc, whether those which were used by the Statutory Commission, or those which were used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for State, apply in this case. An official bloc, would be contrary to the undertakings which we have given to Burma to develop true responsible government there.
While I am on this point I should like to remind the Committee that the position which we envisage for Burma has always been announced by the Prime Minister and Government to be equivalent to what we believed she ought to hold, in relationship to the position which India has gained. The constitution for Burma will in fact be equivalent to that of India with the difference that she will have a Government in which the federal form and the unitary form will be combined. There are in the Burma constitution certain characteristics of the Federal constitution. The Governor of Burma is empowered under Clause 303 of the Bill, as originally presented, to appoint three counsellors to aid him in those functions which he is asked to exercise in his discretion, namely, defence, foreign policy and ecclesiastical affairs. Under Clause 316 those counsellors are entitled to enter either chamber of the legislature and to speak but not to vote therein. Therefore the hon. and gallant Gentleman's desire that the Governor should have spokesmen in the legislature is fulfilled by this very combination of the unitary and the federal forms of government which Burma will have in the future. These counsellors will be able to explain, in either chamber, the point of view of the Governor on the reserved departments which I have mentioned and I think that to some extent
at an rate meets the hon. and gallant Member's desire.
As regards the specific proposal to have 20 nominated members I regret that the Government cannot accept the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion. As regards his request that out of the nominations in the Upper House a certain number should be reserved for officials, we believe that the need for giving official explanations in the Senate will be just as well met by the possibility of the presence of one of the counsellors to whom I have referred, should it be found necessary. They will represent the Governor in dealing with his discretionary powers. I must also remind the Committee that the Senate in Burma will be constituted in a very special way. Half the members will be nominated by the Governor in his discretion and if the hon. and gallant Member is looking far an element of stability I think he will find it in that special constitution of the Senate. That ought to be some answer to him and if he is, as I believe he is, of a conservative frame of mind it ought to remove some at any rate of his apprehension. I believe that his wishes in this respect are genuine but I must remind him that to conserve the official bloc would be to go further back than the reforms which Burma has already had for 12 years. It would be most unacceptable in Burma and would prejudice the whole operation of the reforms. We could not possibly undertake to do anything of that kind. I think, however, that the hon. and gallant Member's desire is really met by the provisions of the Bill as they apply to Burma and I must ask the Committee to come to a decision upon this Schedule without acceding to the proposals of my two hon. Friends.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: May I say, following upon what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) and supporting what has been said by the Under-Secretary, that it is true that Burma in many respects is behind India and in many respects more advanced. Whether or not there is a difference between Burma and India in the political development of the two countries, one thing is absolutely clear, namely, the unequivocal status of this country in relation to Burma. When the Round Table Conference was held in the later part of 1931 when there took place one of
the most remarkable assemblies in the history of the world, when representatives of Burma came over and for many weeks discussed their case with some of the representatives of this House and the then Government, one thing was specifically stated. It was stated by the Government as well as by the previous Secretary of State. That was that, whatever advance was made in relation to India, a corresponding step would be taken in relation to Burma.
If a protest had to be made, I suggest that it should have been made by the hon. and gallant Member at that time. Some interest was felt in Burma as to what would be their position if any advance were made in relation to constitutional government in India, and the Prime Minister of the day, following upon the declaration made by the previous Government, said that, whatever was done in relation to India, a corresponding step would be taken in relation to Burma, and that Burma would not be granted a system of Government that fell short of what would be given to India. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if that were a startling and revolutionary counsel, it ought to have brought forward his protest at that time, and the country should have been warned against a step which he regards as being most serious and dangerous. I am sure that anything that was now done to hold from Burma what was so expressly promised would cause incalculable danger and reaction in that country. I think that the Under-Secretary has taken the only course that is possible having regard to the specific pledges that have been given.

9.48 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I cannot for the life of me see why His Majesty's Government should have given any sort of pledge without consulting Parliament and to have said that whatever we do for Burma it should go to the full length of what we give to India.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The statement was made in Parliament.

Sir H. CROFT: It may have been made in Parliament in answer to a question, but what I complain about, and what I complained about on the Second Reading, is that we lump this question of Burma with the whole question of India.
As Burma is to stand on its own footing, it would have been better to have a separate Bill so that the House could have concentrated on it, and so that the vast interests of Lancashire need not have been passed over without a word and other great subjects passed over without a Debate worthy of so great a country. I am not going to press this matter to a Division because we are anxious to fulfil the agreement that has been made, but I must say that, if we do not divide against this Schedule, it is not because we do not feel strongly; it is because we realise now that it is no good casting our vote on a subject like this when our words fall on deaf ears and when we are so unsuccessful in presenting the British point of view.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: The Under-Secretary has explained that the Governor will be able to make a statement having relation to his discretionary powers. Will he be able to make some official statement in connection with matters which have not to do with discretionary powers?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It hardly seems to me that that question arises on this Schedule.

Thirteenth Schedule agreed to.

FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE.—(The Burma Railway Board.)

9.51 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 322, line 11, to leave out "hold office," and to insert "be appointed."
Paragraph 2 of this Schedule says that the non-official members shall hold office for five years. If these words were left there would have to be some special provision to enable them to resign voluntarily if they desired to do so. Therefore, the Amendment simply substitutes the words "be appointed" for "hold office."

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 322, line 25, at the end, to insert:
4. The Governor, exercising his individual judgment, may make rules providing for the appointment of temporary members to act in place of any members temporarily unable to perform the duties of their office.
This is exactly similar to the Amendment which the Committee passed earlier in the day with regard to the Indian Railway Board.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 322, line 31, after the second "of," insert "or tenders for."

In line 34, after "holding," insert "or tendering for."[The Solicitor-General.]

FIFTEENTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

9.53 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 323, line 17, at the end, to insert:


16 and 17 Vict., c. 107
The Customs Consolidation Act, 1863
Section three hundred and twenty-nine.


23 and 24 Vict., c. 89
An Act to extend in certain cases the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1859
The whole Act.


This Schedule refers to enactments which are repealed because they will be inapplicable having regard to the passage of this Bill. This Amendment proposes to put into the Schedule Section 329 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1853. This Section was passed in an earlier epoch in our commercial traditions and habits, and enables the Indian Legislature to permit the conveyance of goods or passengers from one part of the possessions of the East India Company to another part in other than British ships. The Section is now no longer applicable. The other statute in this Amendment is the Superannuation Act of 1859, which deals with the superannuation rights of officers who were transferred from the home Civil Service to the India Office in this country. As under this Bill the India Office will become part of the home Civil Service, the provisions of the Act no longer have any relation to India.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 323, line 19, at the end, to insert:


56 and 57 Vict., c. 62
The Madras and Bombay Armies Act, 1893
The whole Act.


This is a proposal to repeal the Madras and Bombay Armies Act, 1893. This Act abolished the offices of commander-in-chief of the forces in Madras and Bombay and military secretary to the Governments of Madras and Bombay. These offices have been abolished and therefore this Act should no longer encumber the Statute.

Amendment agreed to.

9.55 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 323, line 24, column 3, at the end, to insert:
except the Preamble and Sub-section (1) of Section forty-seven.
This is an Amendment to insert at the end of the provisions of this Schedule repealing the Government of India Act, 1919, the words which appear on the Order Paper. It is consequential. The only thing about which I might say a word is with regard to Sub-section (1) of Section 47. That is the Section which defines the short title of the Bill. As we are excepting the Preamble from the Bill, it is obvious that we should except the Sub-section which gives the short title to the Bill.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am not going to raise the question which I have tried several times before to raise, but I think we must remind the Government that though they preserve the Preamble of the 1919 Act of Parliament we, for our part, must not be understood in any way as accepting the terms of the Preamble of 1919 as indicating what we consider ought to be the ideal we are pursuing at this moment. We have, from the beginning of this discussion, indeed before we began the discussion on the Second Reading, and on the discussion on the White Paper, consistently said that in our judgment it is the duty of this Parliament not to be considering how it can stand by the Preamble of 1919 but how it can implement the repeated declarations given in this House and outside by successive Governments, and
this one as well as the others. I ask the Government once again to take note of the fact that we regard this action of standing by the Preamble of 1919 and leaving it suspended in mid-air, having taken away the rest of the Act, as art Act which has no significance at all beyond the fact that the Government are not prepared to carry out their declaration and their pledges given in the past. I am sorry that the Government have stood by this position. However, we are not anxious to detain the Committee, though we could very usefully have a long discussion on the implication of the Preamble.

9.59 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I cannot allow to pass the statement by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) that any inference can be drawn from this that the Government do not propose to stand by their pledges. It is difficult to discuss this matter without contravening the rules of Order, but as that statement was made I hope the Chair will allow me to contradict it in emphatic terms and to refer to what was said earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by my learned Friend the Attorney-General on matters raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I will exercise the same forbearance as the hon. Member for Caerphilly. It may be that the Preamble does not convey to this country and to India all that we would like to express, but none the less this Amendment, following upon the earlier Amendments, is the fulfilment on the part of the Government of a promise made on Second Reading, and because that promise has been carried out we support the Amendment, and we are very glad that it has been found possible to carry the earlier Amendments to the one now suggested. I think there would have been some disappointments if that had not been done.

10.1 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: I wish to enter a caveat. I also have an observation to make with regard to this matter of the Preamble. It is intended by the Government to be the preservation of the Declaration of policy. I remember very well at the time that the Preamble was before the House when it was part of
the Government of India Act, and I remember the questions of whether the Preamble adequately expressed the right line of policy to be pursued. It has this at any rate to be said for it. It stands now upon the Statute Book and has authority. It has been there for a number of years, and it carries much more weight and authority than any statements made by Ministers in the course of this Debate or in the Committees. For that reason, it is good authority, and I think it is sufficient authority. I believe that this Preamble has justification for preservation. I am only putting in, as other hon. Members have done, a caveat that some of us do not subscribe to this Statutory Declaration.

Amendment agreed to.

10.2 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 323, line 33, column 3, at the end, to insert:
except Section two and Sub-section (1) of Section four.
This is a small Amendment to repair an oversight in the Schedule which repeals the Government of India Navy Act of 1927, the bulk of which is superseded and is no longer necessary as the result of this Bill. There is a section in it which has the effect of making officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines who have served in the Indian Navy subject to the Naval Discipline Act. It was not noticed at the time, but it has now been noticed, and this is to put the matter right.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 323, line 41, at the end, to insert:


23 and 24 Geo. 5, c. 36
The Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1933
In the First Schedule the words "5 and 6 Geo. 5, c. 61; The Government of India Act; Section one hundred and twenty-seven."


This is another very small point. It is consequential on the part of the Schedule which has been passed repealing the Government of India Act, 1919.
What it is now proposed to repeal is the reference to that Act in the administration of Justice Act, 1933. As the Act itself has been repealed, clearly the reference to it in another Act ought to be repealed.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do so in order to inquire from the Under-Secretary, or the Solicitor-General, as to how far they propose to go to-night. I think the Under-Secretary and the Government will agree that we have made very substantial progress than was, perhaps, expected and on this side we would like to have an assurance from him that if we give, without division, the second reading of this new Schedule, the Government in return would not proceed further to-night but would allow us to take the detailed discussion of the Amendments to the Schedule to-morrow. Of course in saying that it must be understood that there are some details of some importance from our point of view and we should like to-morrow to have ample time to discuss them. If we can dispose of the Second Reading of the Schedule to-night we should secure to ourselves ample time for discussing the various details that will arise to-morrow. I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will be able to assure us that if the Second Reading of this Schedule is passed this evening we shall then be able to begin to-morrow on the detailed discussion of the Amendment.

10.7 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: May I add my request to that which has just been so reasonably put from the front Opposition bench? I think the Under-Secretary will agree that what the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) says is perfectly fair—that we have kept up to time. It has been an anxiety on behalf of my friends that it should not be counted against us that we have discussed some of these very vital matters at so great length that we might have upset the programme. My hon. Friends agree that there are such important Amendments to the Schedule that with a view to saving time we would even
give up a Division on the Schedule in order that we might have a fair discussion of these big points to-morrow.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I should like to associate myself with what has been suggested by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones), that if we could reach the Second Reading of this Schedule we should have made ample progress. Could we have some indication whether to-morrow, if necessary by the suspension of the 11 o'clock rule, we could have time to discuss points which may arise? No one can be sure to-morrow that all these different points on the Amendments can be covered within the ordinary time and I think, seeing that we have been able to complete our business—or it appears that we shall be able so to do—in 30 days, it would be a pity if anything arises to-morrow that means that we should be restricted to 11 o'clock rather than be given any such time as may be necessary.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The requests put to the Government by hon. Gentlemen are quite legitimate. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to take the Second Reading of this new Schedule this evening, and I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, and what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, about not dividing on the Schedule. The Committee may be justly proud, on the 29th day, that they have reached actually the end of the original Bill. To-morrow will be the thirtieth day. I understand that it is the intention of the Government to suspend the 11 o'clock rule, and I sincerely hope that it may be possible to finish the new Schedule on the Order Paper, the Amendments there are to this Schedule, and the Burma Schedule, which is largely consequential, except for the different conditions in Burma, by to-morrow night. If we do that the Committee will have achieved something which is a record in the history of Parliament, and I sincerely hope we shall be able to achieve that record. I am obliged to say, on behalf of the Government, that it would facilitate my agreeing to the hon. Members' requests if we could have a reasonable understanding that we would, with the aid, perhaps, of a little later sitting if neces-
sary, conclude the business on the Committee stage of the Bill to-morrow night. If I could have that understanding, I think it is legitimate for me on behalf of the Government to say that we shall just confine ourselves to taking the Second Reading of the Schedule to-night. If there can be no likelihood of an understanding on this point, it would be much better for us to make further progress to-night, but I understand that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to do as the hon. Member suggests, and I hope, therefore, that I may hear that it may be reasonably possible to have general agreement to complete the business on the 30th day.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The Under-Secretary is no poor hand at driving a bargain. I have offered to him a concession, and, in return, he asks a further concession from me. I understand his anxiety, and, as far as I am concerned, and I think I can speak for my hon. Friends, we will do our best. I can only speak for them. We will do our best to complete the business to-morrow, but I must make this observation. We do attach great importance to some of our Amendments, and, if we should find in the course of our proceedings to-morrow that our Amendments are, not designedly but by the exercise of Members' natural rights of advocating their own case, squeezed out, if I may use that phrase, and hon. Members will understand what I mean, we might perhaps be obliged to ask for more time. That would only be in the very last resort. We want to get this thing finished. We should like to have it finished to-morrow night. There is other work pressing for our attention, and it would be in the interests of us all to achieve this record to which the Under-Secretary has referred, namely, to complete this colossal task of the Committee stage in the allotted time. As far as we are concerned, we will do our utmost to co-operate to that end.

10.13 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I am very anxious to try as far as possible to agree with the suggestion of the Under-Secretary. There will not be, I am convinced, any waste of time from my friends. We certainly do not want to procrastinate over any of these new proposals. There are, how-
ever, very vital matters. We will certainly do our utmost to cut our words down, but we cannot on such a matter give any specific undertaking that we will exclude any vital point which comes forward. Personally, I very much hope that the Government will not have to be forced to ask us to sit late to-morrow, because I think that will be out of spirit with the keeping of this agreement, which has been a wonderful lead as to how business can be carried through the House. We will do our best not unduly to take up the time of the Committee, but we must preserve our right to press any vital points on the Government.

Mr. BUTLER: I think the general feeling among all sections of the Committee is, "We will all do our best," and I feel that His Majesty's Government ought to be content with that. Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion to report progress, and give me leave to move this Schedule. I must warn the Committee that I shall be obliged to make a short speech in explaining it, but I do not wish to keep the Committee sitting long to-night.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: In view of the obvious good feeling that exists I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to Franchise.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
I think the first impression this Schedule must have made on the Committee was one of size and magnitude, but I feel sure that the Members of the Committee have, with their usual assiduity, mastered its details. At the same time, it would not be fair if I did not offer one or two words of explanation, which are due to the Committee and due to the importance of this particular Schedule. In the original Memorandum which accompanied the Bill as introduced the Government said that it was proposed to regulate the franchise in India by Order-in-Council, but a saving phrase was in the Memorandum to say that if there were a request for the franchise to be scheduled the Government
would do their best to comply with that request. It has since become clear to us that there is a desire that the franchise should be scheduled to the Bill, and it is in response to a request which comes not only from quarters opposite but from the hon. and gallant Members who have from time to time opposed us in these Debates that we have decided to schedule the franchise. We think there is justice in the request. It is legitimate for Parliament, in considering a Bill of this magnitude, to ask who is going to be enfranchised under it, and what are the general qualifications for electors. In view of the interest in these matters which we all take as Members of Parliament it is natural that we should be interested in the future qualifications for electors in the constituencies in India.
There is no doubt that the very complexity of and mass of detail involved in Indian franchise was a reason why we were unable to produce this franchise Schedule when the Bill was introduced; my right hon. Friend has already acknowledged that and it is clear from the nature of the subject. But the complexity is somewhat reduced when we reflect that these matters have been before the public ever since the report of the Franchise Committee some three years ago. The general findings of the Franchise Committee have been included in this Schedule. The Franchise Committee decided to extend the Indian franchise to a certain level. Their detailed recommendations were considered by the Joint Select Committee. In certain respects the Joint Select Committee toned up women's franchise, which had been slightly reduced in the White Paper which had come in between the Report of the Franchise Committee and the Report of the Joint Select Committee. This Schedule which looks alarming in its legislative form, does, therefore, include facts about the Indian franchise which anyone interested in the subject could have been following for the last three years. The only complication, therefore, upon the original level of franchise suggested by the Franchise Committee is, in particular, in regard to certain of the women's qualifications, certain of the educational qualifications, and so forth.
At this stage it would be wise to tell the Committee that this Schedule relates
solely to the franchise for territorial constituencies; it does not include the franchise for Provincial Upper Houses, for example, or for electoral colleges, or the arrangements for all the special interests. The reason for that is that for some time, in fact for a long time, ever since the report of the Franchise Committee, it has been acknowledged that there should be a Commission to delimit the constituencies in India, and, in particular, to delimit the constituencies for special interests. This is a work which cannot be done until Parliament has given approval to the Bill and to the level of the franchise, because it would be impossible to foretell the decision of Parliament on these matters. Therefore, it is quite legitimate to leave certain of these matters until the visit of the Delimitation Commission to India, when that takes place after the passage of the Bill. The particular details of the Upper Houses has not yet been decided, and will, therefore, have to be submitted later by Order-in-Council, since there has not been found time, in the period that has elapsed since the decision was taken about the electoral colleges and so forth, for a final decision upon the franchise and the Upper Houses to be arrived at. The main basis for the franchise for India in future is included in this Measure, and all that fundamentally affects the points in which hon. Members are interested is referred to in this Schedule.
It might be convenient for the Committee if I gave an idea of the extent of the franchise which is covered by this new Schedule. The general gross electorate will be in the neighbourhood of 35,000,000. That figure will be made up of about 29,000,000 men and about 6,000,000 women. The Committee may be aided if I give some idea of the manner in which the franchise has been decided for each particular Province. If I might give a piece of advice early in the discussion, it is that hon. Members will turn their attention to the fact that the franchise has been decided by particular Provinces and according to the idosyncrasies of particular Provinces. In many of the detailed points which could arise out of the Schedule it would be easier to remember that conditions differ in different Provinces, and therefore it has been wise on the part of the Franchise Committee originally, and of the Government at this stage, to follow a par-
ticular scheme according to the conditions in a particular Province.
The basis of the franchise, therefore, follows the conditions in particular Provinces. It is important, when framing a franchise at a certain level, to require uniformity upon which the franchise may be said to be fair. In some Provinces the franchise has been based upon land revenue. In the Punjab, where there is a land revenue, the franchise has been based upon it. In Madras, however, where there is an elaborate system of local taxation, the franchise, on the recommendation of the original Madras Franchise Committee, is based upon local taxation. These facts enable one more easily to appreciate the basis of the franchise in the particular Province. In some Provinces where there is a permanent settlement it has not been possible to base the franchise on the land revenue, and therefore, as in Bihar, it has been necessary to base the franchise on some form of local taxation.
Those indications will, I think, show the manner in which this franchise Schedule has been drafted. The Schedule opens with some general explanation, and then it proceeds to cover one Province after another, individually. Taking a particular instance, there are general requirements as to residence and qualifications dependent upon certain matters, such as taxation in the case of Madras or land revenue in another Province. Then there will probably be some reference to educational qualifications and in the case of each Province, there is some reference to women. The point of view of the depressed classes also has not been forgotten. Every section of the population, as the Prime Minister demanded in the original terms of reference of the Franchise Committee, has been considered in the proposals set out in this new franchise Schedule. I hope, therefore, that when we come to consider the details of the Schedule this general picture will have been of some service to the Committee.
I conclude by saying that this Schedule is naturally one of importance. A franchise is the measure of political power which you are giving to a particular portion of the population, and the Government are certain, after the investigations that have been made, that we have done the best with this franchise to do justice to all the interests in the country. We
think that we have, for instance, reformed a defect in the present franchise in that it is loaded in favour of the towns. We think that in our present franchise we have got over that difficulty, and have done greater justice to the country in. India, seeing that India has so predominantly an agricultural population. We believe that no section of the population will be found, after these franchise proposals have been carefully examined, to have been left without a proper means of expressing its own views and opinions. That is the reason for the vote, and we believe that, if the vote given under this Schedule is intelligently used, it will enable every section of the population to achieve its desires under the new Constitution. It may seem to hon. Members to be very complicated, but it is difficult to find a franchise level in a large country like India which does justice to every section of the population. It is only at one level that real justice can be done to town and country, man and woman, lowly and rich. We believe that we have attained as nearly as we can to that ideal. But we believe that this Schedule is not mere idealism; we believe that it is practically conceived and practically drafted with a view to achieving practical results and giving each section of the population a chance of achieving their desires under the scheme of responsible government which we have suggested in the Bill.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I think one ought to say at once that we are very much indebted to the Government for having conceded the request that was made, certainly by us and probably from other quarters of the House as well, that these franchise proposals should be embodied in a new Schedule; and I think one ought also in justice to say that we are deeply indebted to those who must have worked very hard indeed in order to present so compendious a statement of the Government's proposals as is contained in this new Schedule. In saying that, of course, I do not imply that we accept in all their details the proposals of the Schedule. I agree with the Under-Secretary that this is a very difficult and complex problem, and one that is made more complex, perhaps, by the infinite diversity of conditions prevailing over so large a territory as India. On that
account it is very hard, perhaps, to arrive at some sort of common standard by which you may judge the appropriate qualifications to introduce as franchise qualifications in this connection.
Frankly, I confess that I do not feel disposed to discuss this matter any longer now. We have had a very long discussion, and, as far as I am concerned, I have not had much refreshment during the day, and really have not the strength to go on any further. But I would like to say this: To-morrow we shall have Amendments directing attention to the main points, anyhow, on which we differ from the Government. There are some particulars in which we think they have been excessively conservative, so to speak, in their provisions, and we shall try as far as we can to induce the Committee to extend the provisions which have been made by the Government. I will content myself at this point by saying that we are obliged to the Under-Secretary, and to the Secretary of State also, for having conceded our request. We appreciate how complex the problem has been. We are specially indebted to those who have drafted the proposals for the way in which they have been drafted, and we are obliged to the Under-Secretary for having made a statement to-night by way of explanation. I do not desire to say anything further, except that to-morrow we shall return to the details of the Schedule.

10.31 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I believe that some of my hon. Friends who were consulted also agree that it is desirable that this Schedule should be brought forward in order that the full facts should be before the Committee; otherwise one naturally might complain of this immense amount of matter which has been in our hands only for a few days, and which we have to try to study. It was obviously better, even with all that inconvenience, than that this matter should be dealt with by Order in Council at a later time. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) is now going to receive what he very much deserves in the way of refreshment. He deserves very much this brief interlude, and we hope he will come back renewed in vigour to-morrow. I am not going to say anything which might detain him another moment in this House, or to
address myself to his hon. Friends, but I intend to say a word or two to my hon. Friends opposite. We are considering this mighty Schedule with all its strange ramifications. We have to realise that there are entirely different proposals, as far as I can see, with regard to the franchise, qualifications of residence, property qualifications, etc., and also with regard to education in the different Provinces of India. That, in itself, would appear, on the face of it, to be a pity when you are devising a scheme which is to be applied to India.
The thing which strikes me, and, I imagine, every Member of the Committee, most forcibly, is the fact that here you have 35,000,000 electors, who are to have this great boon conferred upon them, and of whom, possibly, some 10,000,000 or 12,000,000 can read and write and can understand something of what it all means. The number of persons who can understand the English of it is very much smaller. Of that electorate, the English-speaking persons will be a very limited number. We wonder sometimes whether we have not rushed this matter too far forward, and whether we have not abused the whole spirit of that Preamble referred to earlier in the evening when it was laid down that we should go forward step by step in India. When we see the vast proposals and mighty changes which affect every individual in India, and especially those 35,000,000 who are to have the responsibility of carrying out a form of government which they cannot understand, it is a very grave responsibility. There is nothing in this Schedule as far as I can see as to how these poor persons who can neither read nor write are to get on. There is no vivid description such as we believe is necessary to indicate the candidates for whom they are to vote. None of the difficulties are cleared away in the Schedule, but they all, apparently, will be administrative acts which will be put into force when the Bill becomes an Act.
In passing from this Schedule this evening and before we come to the Amendments, we must be very much concerned with the mass of materials that the newly-enfranchised persons in India will have to absorb if they are to carry on this great act of self-government. We do not know, we have not been told, we have had no indication whether we have
been legislating for something which is real or something which is not going to be put into effect. We do not know how far His Majesty's Government have got with the various forces in India in settling all their differences. Before coming to the end of this great Schedule it would have been highly desirable if we could have been told that the Government had managed to get peace in at least one organised section of opinion in India. Within the last few weeks we have heard from the organised forces in India, including Congress, including the Trade Union Conference [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I thought that hon. Members would cheer their comrades in India who are so violently opposed to this Bill, and have twice said so by unanimous resolution—and including the National Liberal Federation of India, and when we remember that practically every section of opinion which has an organised voice, with the exception of the European Association, whose numbers have so seriously dwindled from what they were in the past, have stated emphatically—and I think I am right in saying in practically every case unanimously—that they do not want this Bill, but want the status quo.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The desirabality or otherwise of the Bill does not arise on the Second Reading of this Schedule.

Sir H. CROFT: I am grateful for your Ruling, and I will conclude by saying that in regard to this Schedule when those who are shortly to become electors in India see its 30 pages they will be distraught to know what it all means. I very much fear that if what is laid down in this Schedule is brought into force it will take many years before we can explain to these unfortunate people what it does mean.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I should be inclined to agree with the hon. and gallant Member if I thought that all the 35,000,000 of people in India who will be concerned had to make a close study of this Schedule. If they had to do that I am afraid the constitutional progress would not be effected. I doubt whether one in 10,000 of the electors in this country have ever read through the registration laws. In the constituency of Bournemouth, no doubt, they have made a close study of all these Measures, which form
a very substantial volume on the lawyers' shelves, but, living in the more extreme parts of the country, the people of my neighbourhood have been otherwise engaged. Those people who will make a relevant study of these matters are those who are looking for the votes of these people, who will have to be safeguarded against the difficulties that arise from the appeal to the people and from the carrying through of the elections. I expect that, just as there are agents and lawyers in this country who make it their study to understand these things, those who are carrying on the same duties in India will study the law in the same way. If we were for the first time making a law relating to our own elections, and if we were setting up a constitution in this country providing for every constituency, it is likely that we should get a Bill perhaps with not quite as many pages as the one we have been discussing, but it would be a very fearsome volume. I hope, therefore, that we may be able to get the Second Reading of the Schedule and get down to the Amendments on the Order Paper. Some of the fears which oppress the mind of the hon. and gallant Member may have disappeared by the time we meet to-morrow.

10.41 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I only desire to ask for an explanation on one or two points which may not be raised on Amendments to the proposed new Schedule. In the first place, these qualifications must be bewildering to anyone who has no knowledge of the diverse conditions which prevail in India. The qualifications vary very much in the different Provinces, and I should like to know whether the principle on which they have been based is to enfranchise as far as possible the same social strata in each Province; whether, broadly speaking, they are people in the same economic position in each Province? It may not be possible to give a reply in very few words, but I think it would be helpful if we had some idea as to how these qualifications compare with those which obtain in this country.
Then with regard to the qualifications for women who vote in respect of their husbands' qualifications, are we to take it that this group of voters represents the wives of the men who now have the vote under the present franchise? Has that
been kept as the basis? In the third place, I fail to see anywhere in the Schedule any provision for removing the obligation that wives should apply for their votes in certain Provinces before the second election. There is such a provision in respect of the educational qualification, but I see no provision for removing the obligation in respect of wives, although the Joint Select Committee said that it ought to be done. My last question is that I should like to know exactly what the Government contemplate in regard to the selection of the woman who is to vote in a house where there are more wives than one. The Schedule is rather vague; it gives no idea as to how that question is to be solved. Has any decision been arrived at in the matter?

10.44 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: The Under-Secretary said that 35,000,000 people are to be given the vote, and that 29,000,000 are men and 6,000,000 women. I want to know the total adult population; how many males there are and how many females; and what is the total population which is to be dealt with under this Schedule? I understand that it covers only a portion of India. These are points upon which we should like information before we continue our discussion to-morrow.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The total gross electorate is 35,000,000 approximately. The total men will be just over 29,000,000, and the total women will be just over 6,000,000. The percentage of the total electorate to the total population is just under 14 per cent., and the percentage of the total electorate to the total adult population is 27 per cent. The percentage of the total male electorate to the total adult male population will be about 43 per cent. The total population of British India is in the neighbourhood of 260,000,000, and these proposals apply, of course, to British India. In order to aid us in our discussion to-morrow let me add that the adult population is about half the total population. The forgetting of that fact often renders statistics rather confusing.

Miss RATHBONE: In reckoning the 6,000,000 women voters are the Government allowing for wastage consequent on application? Does the Under-Secretary mean that 6,000,000 women will be qualified to enrol if they apply, or is that an
estimate of how many are likely to enrol, allowing for the wastage due to applications?

Mr. BUTLER: The position of the women electorate will be, roughly, 2,000,000 qualified by property, 4,000,000 by wifehood and 300,000 by education. The 6,000,000 total takes into consideration the total number that will be on the rolls under these qualifications. We do not envisage that the total will be very much reduced by wastage on application.

Miss RATHBONE: The four million wife voters will be entitled to enrol?

Mr. BUTLER: Those are the women who are entitled to enrol. But I must safeguard myself by saying that I think it would be wise if we stuck to general figures, because the final electoral rolls have still to be made, and the overlapping and so forth which may arise renders it quite impossible, without misleading the Committee, to give the exact figures. With regard to the hon. Lady's further point, the opportunity for altering the applications provision is under Clause 285, (2) (c), the Clause which deals with Amendment of the Act in future by Order in Council owing to representations. The selection of women to vote in houses is a detailed matter which is governed by the introductory portion of the Schedule and the description given there. It is extremely difficult to arrive at a choice of the particular wife in question. The formula we have laid down, after considerable thought, is what we consider the most suitable way of arriving at a form of words in deciding that invidious matter.
With regard to people in the same economic position, the answer is "Yes." Our proposals are intended to arrive at a level in each Province which will meet approximately the same economic position of the population under the franchise in any particular Province. The hon. Lady asked me to give an instance of the sort of level on which the franchise would be. In Madras it is on the level of any
man who pays any form of local government tax, and in a revenue Province it amounts to a few rupees land revenue. It means, to sum it up, in revenue terms, a very small cultivator, a man who definitely pays that revenue and owns a small piece of land, a man therefore with a stake in the soil. It means that the smallest cultivator will really be getting the vote and will have an opportnuity of influencing the election. I think that those were the points raised by the hon. Lady, and I hope that we may now come to a decision.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: I understand that the married woman will have the vote. Suppose that a man has more than one wife? Which wife will have the vote?

Mr. BUTLER: I do not want to avoid answering any points on this complicated matter. I have not the exact reference here, but in the introduction to the Schedule there is a definite paragraph providing for the question of the wives of the particular voter and the manner in which the particular wife shall be decided. I will give the hon. Member the reference to-morrow.

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."[Sir G. Bowyer.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."[Sir G. Bowyer.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes before Eleven of the Clock.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I desire to raise a question of Privilege. During the course of yesterday, in common with many, if not all, the hon. Members of this House, I received a letter from the secretary of the League for the Prohibition of Cruel Sports. This letter enclosed a questionnaire asking my views on five questions. The details of these questions are not in themselves a
matter with which I need concern you, except to say that, briefly speaking, they ask my views on what are sometimes called, in my view unjustifiably, blood sports. As I have never been a member of a Hunt and have never had a gun licence, it may not be inappropriate that I should be the one to raise the question of Privilege involved, which arises out of the concluding sentence of the letter, reading as follows:
If we do not hear from you, we shall feel justified in letting your constituents know that you have no objection to cruel sports.
This sentence seems to me to be a particularly objectionable form of political blackmail and, moreover, seems to be a gross breach of the Privileges of this Honourable House, and I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would state your opinion as to whether a prima facie case of such a breach of Privilege has been established.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I also received one.

Mr. SPEAKER: In giving my Ruling on the question raised by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), it is probably necessary, as I generally do on these occasions, to point out to the House that the subject matter of the letter which the hon. Member has partly read does not influence me in any way whatever. It is no concern of mine at all. It appears to me, in considering the case which the hon. Member has put before the House, that the methods employed, if they are as he has stated, would constitute a breach of Privilege of this House, or rather that he has made out a prima facie case for a breach of Privilege of this House.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move:
That the letter sent to hon. Members by the Secretary of the League for Prohibition of Cruel Sports constitutes a gross breach of the Privileges of this House.

Mr. WELLS: I beg to second the Motion.

Resolved,
That the letter sent to hon. Members by the Secretary of the League for Prohibition of Cruel Sports constitutes a gross breach of the Privileges of this House.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable effect to be given to an International Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency, signed on behalf of His Majesty at Geneva on the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, to apply to foreign coin certain enactments
relating to British coin, and to assimilate the penalties for importing and exporting counterfeit coin." [Counterfeit Currency (Convention) Bill [Lords.]